PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Archives for Duty to Cooperate

Duty to Cooperate

Pennsylvania Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Bad Faith Claim, Even Though Insurer Timely Made Demanded Payments

April 8, 2020 by Gregory Gidus

Empty Pockets

There have been more developments in Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. Conemaugh Health System Inc., the case brought by Ironshore, as excess carrier, to seek reimbursement of amounts paid in an underlying medical malpractice settlement. While we previously reported that the court denied Conemaugh's (the insured's) motion to dismiss, the court has now also ruled that Conemaugh's counterclaims for bad faith can move forward, despite the fact that Conemaugh did not ... Keep Reading »

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Insurer-Defended Policyholder’s Bid to Expand Florida’s Bad Faith “Excess Judgment Rule” to Include Collusive Settlements Concocted Without Insurer’s Consent

November 22, 2019 by Gregory Gidus

In Cawthorn v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., No. 18-12067 (11th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Co., ruling that a consent judgment does not constitute an excess verdict, which is an essential element of a Florida bad faith claim. This appeal arose from an April 2014 underlying automobile accident in which David Cawthorn and Bradley ... Keep Reading »

Florida Court Holds It Was “Miscarriage of Justice” to Deny Insurer Award of Appellate Fees

September 18, 2019 by Daniel G. Enriquez

One hundred dollar bills lit on fire

Florida's offer of judgment statute, Florida Statutes section 768.79, is a common technique for any litigator who wants to place additional risk on the plaintiff. The statute provides that if a defendant in a civil suit files an offer of judgment that is not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the date of filing if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment obtained by the ... Keep Reading »

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Excess Carrier’s Suit Seeking Reimbursement of Amounts Paid in Underlying Medical Malpractice Settlement

April 15, 2019 by Gregory Gidus

Medical Malpractice

Reprinted with permission in Medical Liability Monitor In Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. v. Conemaugh Health Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-153 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2019), the Western District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss an excess carrier's suit seeking reimbursement from its insured for settlement amounts the excess carrier paid in an underlying medical malpractice lawsuit. According to the court, Ironshore plausibly alleged that Conemaugh Health Systems Inc. ... Keep Reading »

Colorado Takes A Stand Against Unauthorized Settlements

May 20, 2016 by Brooke L. French and Robert D. Helfand

The “notice-prejudice” rule gives a pass to policyholders who breach the notice or cooperation provisions of their policies, if the breach is found not to have prejudiced the insurer. Sometimes, the late notice does not arrive until after the policyholder has settled an underlying claim; even in those cases—and even where the policy contains a “no voluntary payments” or a “consent-to-settle” clause—dozens of cases have found that the notice-prejudice rule applies. Last ... Keep Reading »

In Examinations Under Oath, Friends Must Let Friends Testify Alone

March 4, 2016 by Nora Valenza-Frost

The cooperation provisions in most personal lines insurance policies require policyholders to sit for Examinations Under Oath ("EUO") to answer questions about the validity of a claim. What if the insured refuses to attend without having his non-lawyer friend sit beside him? May the insurer insist on examining the insured without the friend in the room? That was the question in Foremost Insurance Company v. Freeman, 2016 WL 380126 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 29, 2016). When Bad ... Keep Reading »

Cooperate, Or Else

February 27, 2015 by Whitney Fore

Picture of Boy Covering Ears

Cooperation is key. Or so says the 10th Circuit at least, in addressing an appeal from a district court's dismissal of an insured's action in which he failed to cooperate with his insurer's claim investigation. The 10th Circuit held that the insured, Kelly Bryant ("Bryant"), had not clearly demonstrated that the insurance company, Sagamore Insurance Company ("Sagamore"), breached its contract or otherwise acted unreasonably and in bad faith when it denied Bryant's claim ... Keep Reading »

In Late Notice Cases, There’s More at Stake than a Single Claim

April 8, 2013 by John C. Pitblado and Robert D. Helfand

Both property and liability policies contain provisions that require the insured to provide its carrier with timely notice of a claim, but cases in which late notice is used as a basis for denying coverage often leave the insurer in an unflattering light.  It is not always apparent that the late notice has made any actual difference to the insurer.  Consequently, even though most notice provisions are written as strictly as possible, making timely notice a condition ... Keep Reading »

Eighth Circuit Declines to Expand Definition of “Conflict of Interest” in Reservation-of-Rights Scenario

March 14, 2013 by Scott C. Shine

A liability insurer’s reservation of rights can affect the insurer’s ability to participate in the litigation of the underlying action.  In most states, an insurer must provide independent counsel if the insurer’s coverage position might benefit from a failure of the insured’s defense on one or more issues in the underlying suit.  As this blog has reported, it is a rule in some other states that the reservation of rights, in and of itself, creates a conflict that ... Keep Reading »

In the Last Frontier, Insurers Shouldn’t Leave Defendants Out in the Cold

February 26, 2013 by John C. Pitblado

An Alaska politician once said of the folks she grew up with, "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity."  But those virtues don’t exactly leap out of the story behind Williams v. Geico Cas. Co., No. S–14089 (Alaska Jan. 25, 2013), which mostly has to do with alcohol, selfishness and stupidity.  At the climax of this sordid tale, a party to the lawsuit argued that an insurer’s refusal to offer policy limits for a release of only one ... Keep Reading »

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing