Written by: Elizabeth Fulton, Esq. In February 2019, the Supreme Court of Texas considered whether the Insurer's corporate representative was required to turn over drafts of affidavits and e-mails with outside counsel to the opposing party when he was designated as a testifying expert by the insurance company.  Reversing the lower court, the Texas Supreme Court weighed its state discovery rules governing testifying experts against the attorney-client privilege, and

Written by: Bryan Forsyth, Esq. In First Acceptance Ins. Co. of Georgia, Inc. v. Hughes, No. S18G0517, 2019 WL 1103831 (Ga. Mar. 11, 2019), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals, 343 Ga. App. 693, 808 S.E.2d 103, and disapproved of Thomas v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 253 Ga. App. 199, 558 S.E.2d 432 (2001) and Alexander Underwriters General Agency v. Lovett, 182 Ga. App. 769, 357

Written by: James H. Fisher II, Esq. In Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Cribb, 2019 WL 451555 (N.D. Ga.), Auto Owners, as insurer brought a declaratory judgment action asserting failure of its insured to comply with a coverage condition precedent of notice of a claim. Its insured failed to provide notice until after being served with a lawsuit nearly 2 years following the occurrence of a serious construction related accidental

Written by: C. Michael Johnson, Esq. The 10th Circuit, just added its authority to a judicial trend of very narrowly construing key business risk exclusions in the CGL Policy: Exclusions j (5) & (6). MTI, Inc., v. Employers Ins. Co, Of Wausau, 2019 WL 321423 (10th Cir. 1/25/19). As part of a renovation effort, MTI employees removed all 64 corroded anchor bolts that were used to stabilize a wooden structure

Written by: Stephen D. Delk, Esq. Nearly all insurers, both as a matter of habit and perhaps in effort to curb expenses, routinely use form releases in settling cases. Although some standing operating procedures in claim handling may often times be a positive, at least for purposes of uniformity and consistency, all insurance carriers should be aware of the potential pitfalls in relying upon generic form releases. A case that

Written by: Sean Cox, Esq. On October 24, 2018, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Northfield Insurance Company v. Herrera, No. 17-51080 (5th Cir., October 24, 2018) wherein it upheld the enforceability of an employee injury exclusion to upstream employers of the insured and their employees. Herrera owned an elevator repair company that bought a commercial general liability insurance policy from Northfield Insurance Company. The policy contained a standard exclusion

Last week the Middle District of Georgia issued a decision that a carrier’s work product protection can essentially evaporate for claims records generated during the period when the insured and insurer clearly disputed coverage if the carrier is later willing to revisit its coverage position and agreed that a covered loss occurred. Omni Health Sols., LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168975 (M.D. Ga. Oct.

Written by: Drew Brooks, Esq. and C. Michael Johnson, Esq. On July 20, 2018, the 11th Circuit affirmed a jury verdict against Geico finding there was “more than enough” evidence to support a finding of bad faith in failing to promptly tender policy limits even though Geico tendered its full policy limits within 20 days of learning of the accident. The timeline is as follows. On 10.27.10 a clear-liability motor vehicle accident occurred;

Written by: Alan Belcher, Esq. Throughout the country, insurance carriers are tasked with balancing their duties to their insured with the principals of corporate stewardship. For certain, Insurance companies are required to govern their relationship with their insureds in good-faith. On the other hand, insurance companies are required to justify the payment of defense costs and claims based upon the policy language that establishes the definition of a covered claim. In

Written by: Karl Braun, Esq. One of the toughest aspects of coverage and coverage opinions is making determinations with an acceptable level of certainty. This task is made exceedingly difficult when courts make coverage determinations based upon amorphous concepts like whether a company has a “substantial business presence” in a certain jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals of New York delivered just such a potential morass in Carlson v. American Intern. Group,