Michael Fiorentino

SMB partner Adam Doeringer will serve as a panelist at Perrin Conferences’ 2024 Talc Litigation Conference on May 29 in Chicago. Doeringer and his fellow panelists will present “Health Compliance,” where they will discuss existing programs for handling liens, how asbestos claims apply, any changes to lien holders approaching settlements and much more.   Learn more: https://lnkd.in/gAjvY6Dx #healthcompliance #talclitigation #Perrin #PerrinConferences #TalcLitigationConference

31

Always try to maintain excellent cycle times for: • First contact • Submitting the estimate after inspection • Any file revisions requested by a file reviewer • Overall timeframe of claim ownership Cycle times are arguably the most important part of the claims process. IA firms and carriers monitor them religiously on a daily basis. Although IA firms offer ample support to help adjusters in this area, they typically will not allow repeatedly poor cycle times to persist. Adjusters who have difficulty maintaining proper cycle times may simply need training or better understanding of their importance in the claims process. If training doesn’t remedy the problem, the company will usually administer warnings and if the problem continues to persist…they may discontinue using the adjuster for claims work. #pacesetterclaims #setthepace #tipsandtricks #tips #adjusters #fieldadjusters #catadjusters #catseason #stormseason #adjustertips #adjustertipsandtricks

21

In fact, this is the case of Insurer surveyor's credible evidence & report in support of repudiation of claim. On the other hand, there was absolutely no evidence of the respondents except the argument that the Surveyor’s report is not clinching, it is open ended and does not hold that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are responsible for the negligence.  The evidence of Surveyor has remained unrebutted. #supremecourtofindia #insurance #repudiation #claim #legaldeli

1

In the world of legal malpractice litigation, it's very easy to point fingers at the actions (or inactions) of another attorney. David M. Saperstein (he/him) explores how successor counsel often has an opportunity to remedy any alleged malpractice. https://bit.ly/3x9tqW7

3

This is a very informative article that provides a brief synopsis on recent insurance coverage opinions and hyperlinks to the cases. Check out the first synopsis out of the 7th Circuit dealing with an Illinois project/law where a sub's CGL carrier refused to defend/indemnify a general contractor: "The steel contractor named the general contractor an additional insured on its CGL policy. The steel contractor's welds were defective. The general contractor retrofitted the named insured's defective columns before they could damage other parts of the system (i.e. before any resultant damages occurred). The subcontractor's CGL insurers refused to defend or indemnify the general contractor, and it sued for coverage. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the steel contractor’s CGL insurers had no duty to defend or indemnify the general contractor. Preventive measures such as removing, replacing, or retrofitting the named insured's work are economic losses not recoverable under a CGL policy." Also, take a look at how the majority concludes its opinion, and let me know your thoughts: "As a final note, we do not think the outcome here will incentivize insurers to “lay low” and intentionally delay in making coverage decisions. Insurers are already incentivized to defend when—unlike here—the underlying facts show a potential for coverage. An insurer who fails to defend but is later found to have a duty to indemnify foregoes having any input in how the underlying lawsuit is litigated. They might give up certain defenses, for example. Or they might be forced to pay a settlement that they would have negotiated differently had they defended the suit themselves. Moreover, insurers that delay coverage decisions may face liability under Illinois law for improper claims practices. Given these real concerns, an insurer has an incentive to defend (perhaps under a reservation of rights letter), andwhen an insurer does not, it does so at its own risk." https://lnkd.in/eRmnYGhB

2

Eleventh Circuit Finds that But-For Causation Needed for ADA Discrimination Claims   The Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming a district court's grant of summary judgment for an employer in an ADA claim. The plaintiff, Jennifer Akridge, appealed the summary judgment for defendant Alfa Mutual Insurance Company. Akridge brought a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Akridge argued that the Alfa discriminated against her by terminating her to avoid paying healthcare costs related to her multiple sclerosis (MS). Alfa self-insures for medical plans. Alfa claimed they terminated Akridge because her position was no longer needed and they needed to cut her position to save on business expenses. Akridge’s medical plan was administered by a third party and the defendant claimed they had no way to determine Akridge’s healthcare costs. Further, Alfa did not maintain information about individual employees’ healthcare costs.   Akridge argued that she was not required to show her disability was a but-for cause of her termination but may simply show it was “a motivating factor,” but the court disagreed with this argument. The court held that because the ADA does not contain similar motivating-factor language as found in Title VII, Akridge cannot resort to this lesser showing and a but-for standard had to be followed for discrimination claims. The court found Akridge did not provide sufficient evidence to support a pretext argument and Akridge had failed to present sufficient evidence of “mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination” to survive summary judgment.  Robert Sniffen Michael Spellman Jeffrey Slanker Terry Harmon Matthew Carson #ada #employmentlaw #laborandemploymentlaw #hr #personnel #eeo

1

GMR Senior Counsel Ann Henriksen prevailed in a UM Hearing on behalf of the insurer. The applicant made a claim for uninsured motorist coverage for injuries she alleged she sustained to her left shoulder, cervical spine and lumber spine as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The claimant underwent physical therapy, chiropractic, and acupuncture treatments three times a week, as well as several trigger point injections to her cervical and lumbar spine. Ann argued that the claimant did not meet any of the categories of the Serious Injury Threshold as delineated in the law. The applicant provided no objective evidence to sustain her allegation that she lifted weights and did high-impact cardiovascular exercises three times a week before the accident. Additionally, she argued that if the claimant exercised as she alleged, then the MRI of the left shoulder reflecting tendinosis is due to repetitive stress injury and not causally related. Lastly, the objective evidence showed two bulges in her cervical spine and two in her lumbar spine, neither meeting the threshold. The arbitrator found, concerning the categories of permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and significant limitation of use of a body function or system, the evidence did not adequately establish significant limitations for a sufficient period. Additionally, with regard to the category of an injury that prevents a claimant from performing substantially all of the material acts that constituted her usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 eighty days immediately following the accident, the arbitrator saw no actual finding that the claimant was disabled. The claim was denied in its entirety. Check out more of our results here - https://bit.ly/40HfIU9

22

Trade secret cases often involve related claims and issues, such as contractual agreements, business tort claims and much more, which could potentially be litigated simultaneously. Learn more about the impact of related claims on trade secret cases in this blog from Attorney Devin Bates. https://bit.ly/4aXn3Ul

3

Every day, companies face an abundance of premises liability claims such as comparative negligence, open and obvious hazards, natural accumulation, spoliation of evidence and many more.  Join Income Member Ryan Danahey for a comprehensive overview of Illinois & Wisconsin premises liability that all employers and owners can use as a resource for some of their most challenging claims. Register here:

1

Litigating a case involving a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation? The most recent case addressing the elements of the claim is 𝑅𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑦 115 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑝. 𝑣. 𝐵𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎, 2024 WL 1619697, *7 (S.D.Fla. April 15, 2024). Remember, when pleading such a claim in federal court, “[w]hile Rule 8(a) does not demand “detailed factual allegations,” it does require “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑔 𝑣. 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑜𝑢𝑡ℎ 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑎 𝐵𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑠, 2024 WL 1579797, *2 (M.D.Fla. April 11, 2024)(quoting 𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑡𝑙. 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑝. 𝑣. 𝑇𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, factual allegations must be sufficient “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”” 𝐼𝑑. Like what you see? Visit the Florida Litigation Guide and see our FREE sample chapter: https://lnkd.in/eGGPuDBY #floridalawyer #florida #floridalaw #legalresearch #breachofcontract #floridaattorney #litigation #legalguide #lawyers #attorneys #lawstudents #floridalitigationguide #lawschool

3

Does an Insurer who issued a Businessowners liability policy have a duty to defend its Insured who was retained to provide architectural services? The Insured was a defendant in 23 personal injury lawsuits resulting from a carbon monoxide leak in a building. In Allied Design Consultants v Pekin Ins 2024 IL App (4th) 230738 (filed June 18, 2024) the Appellate Court found that there was no duty to defend. The Insured's contract with a school district provided it would perform certain architectural services relating to an addition including the design of certain mechanical systems. The PI Complaints alleged that domestic hot water heaters and their vent systems were not in accordance with their manufacturer's installation and service instructions. The policy contained a professional services exclusion. The exclusion provided that the policy did not apply to bodily injury due to rendering and failure to render any professional service. The Appellate Court observed that professional service means any business activity conducted by the Insured which involves specialized knowledge, labor, or skill, and is predominantly mental or intellectual as opposed to physical or manual in nature. The Appellate Court found that the allegations against the Insured were not physical or manual in nature. The failure to properly and adequately repair or otherwise remedy the unsafe and dangerous condition of the mechanical systems requires specialized knowledge and would be predominantly mental or intellectual in nature.

4

The Willis Law Group understands that fast and immediate response is critical for helping clients for their immediate well-being, as well as helping them preserve evidence in defending their interests. This CE presentation will illustrate the importance of the investigation from beginning to end and how the smallest detail can change the outcome of the case. https://lnkd.in/e-4Be-nZ #thewillislawgroup.com #thewillislawgroup #twlg #insurancedefense #lawfirm #legal #law

2

Whether your litigation file involves a passenger vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, bus, commercial vehicle, semi-truck, crane, forklift, or heavy equipment, YA stands ready with a national team of accident reconstruction experts, bio-mechanical experts, and an in-house animation team. Call and let us know how YA can assist. #litigation #truckinglitigation #truckinglawyer #forensicinvestigation #subrogation #defenselawyer #accidentreconstruction #inlandmarine

10

“Continental conceded at oral argument that the claims file contains a ‘blow by-blow’ diary of the insurer’s investigation and decision-making process with regard to Brown’s loss of earnings claim. The tort of bad faith arises when an insurance company intentionally denies, fails to process, or fails to pay a claim without a reasonable basis for such action….The portions of the claims file which explained how the company processed and considered Brown’s claim and why it rejected the claim are certainly relevant to these issues. Further, bad-faith actions against an insurer, like actions by client against attorney, patient against doctor, can only be proved by showing exactly how the company processed the claim, how thoroughly it was considered and why the company took the action it did. The claims file is a unique, contemporaneously prepared history of the company’s handling of the claim; in an action such as this the need for the information in the file is not only substantial, but overwhelming.” -- Brown v. Superior Court, 670 P.2d 725 (Ariz. App. Ct. 1983).

27

1 Comment