New Washington Supreme Court Decision
We wanted to alert you to a recent Washington Supreme Court case that alters the scope of the attorney client relationship between an insurer and coverage counsel. In Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of...
View ArticleWashington Supreme Court Finds No Absolute Right to an EUO in First-Party Claims
According to a recent Washington Supreme Court decision, first-party insurers do not have an absolute right to an examination under oath (“EUO”), and are required to show prejudice before denying a...
View ArticleAdditional Insured Status And Contractual Indemnity Provisions: Are You...
“Additional insured” provisions are one of the most prevalent risk shifting techniques used in the insurance field today. Yet surprisingly, they remain one of the least understood for insurers, courts,...
View ArticleExtrinsic Evidence and the Duty to Defend
When does an insurer have a duty – or not – to defend an insured, and what facts can be used to make this determination? These are two of the most common, yet challenging questions faced by insurers....
View ArticlePreparing For the Aftermath of the Medicare Data Release
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has just released a large set of data [http://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2014-Press-releases-items/2014-04-09.html]...
View ArticleClient Questions Regarding the Duty to Defend
Three common questions insurance companies ask regarding the duty to defend are: 1. If there are both covered and uncovered claims against an insured, does the insurer have to pay for the...
View ArticleWASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES A “SUIT” TRIGGERING THE...
In Gull Industries, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division I, No. 69569-0-I (June 2, 2014), a Washington Appellate Court, for the...
View ArticleCLIENT QUESTIONS REGARDING POLICY INTERPRETATIONS
One of the more common questions that clients ask coverage counsel is how a court will interpret a new policy provision. This is especially true of clients that make a point of using the latest...
View ArticleMiller v. Kenny
A recent Washington Court of Appeals Division I decision addresses a host of insurer related issues concerning extra-contractual liability. The primary ruling in Miller v. Kenny, 325 P.3d...
View ArticleInsurance for Technology Problems
In our increasingly digital age, we should expect a corresponding increase in the number of insurance claims involving lost data, security breaches, inadvertent dissemination of private information,...
View ArticleAdditional Insured Status under Excess and Umbrella Policies
Blanket additional insured endorsements often require examination of a contract between the named insured and the purported additional insured, as many of these endorsements provide insured status...
View ArticleRecent Oregon Case Describes Burdens of Proof Applicable to Claims for...
The Oregon Court of Appeals recently issued a decision impacting burdens of proof and allocation of damages in cases involving liability insurance claims for coverage of progressive or continuous...
View ArticleWhen can an Insurer’s Representations during Policy Negotiations Prevent...
In Oregon, under certain circumstances when an insurer denies a defense, an insured may rely upon the doctrines of estoppel and oral binder to avoid the written terms of the policy. Estoppel precludes...
View ArticleHas SCOTUS Signaled Putative Class Action Defendants to More Aggressively...
The holding in a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in a securities class action case raises broader questions regarding whether defendants should more aggressively challenge the...
View ArticleThe Duty to Indemnify When The Insured Settles: Who Has The Burden of Proof?
When an insured’s liability is established at trial, the duty to indemnify is based on the facts proven at trial. Ledford v. Gutoski, 319 Or. 397, 403, 877 P.2d 80, 84 (1994). However, when the...
View ArticleHawai’i declines to adopt Cedell, for now . . .
It has been more than two years since Washington’s Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wash.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), radically changing the...
View ArticleClient Questions Regarding Settlement
In working to settle coverage actions, insurers often seek to include non-monetary terms in a settlement that insureds may resist. Such non-monetary terms often are as hotly debated as the amount of...
View ArticleWest Hills Development Company v. Chartis Claims, Inc., et al., 273 Or App...
In the recent case West Hills Development Company v. Chartis Claims, Inc., et al., 273 Or App 155 (2015) (“West Hills”), the Oregon Court of Appeals provided further guidance to Oregon insurers on...
View ArticleExcess Insurance: Issues Regarding Exhausting the Underlying Policy Limits
A basic premise of excess insurance coverage is that it applies only after the underlying insurance limits have been exhausted. Problems may arise, however, when a primary insurer refuses to pay the...
View ArticleThree Cases You Need to Know for Northwest Insurance Law
1. Reasonable or Questionable? Generally, to establish bad faith, the insured must show that the insurer’s breach of the insurance contract was “unreasonable, frivolous or unfounded.” Kirk v. Mt. Airy...
View Article
