American Association of Insurance Management Consultants

Results For Articles or Consultants

Expert Witness - Litigation Support

Chantal M. Roberts

My career spans 20 years in the insurance claims industry with specialization in commercial general liability, special investigations/fraud investigations, commercial auto insurance, homeowner’s insurance, and cargo insurance.  I spent the majority of that time working claims for syndicates of Lloyd’s of London.  I published How Can Cannabis Claims be Covered and Adjusted? in the CPCU Insights…

THE RISKS INHERENT IN DIMINISHING LIMIT POLICIES

“Diminishing limits policies create a host of potential problems for insurance company claim departments. As is well known the insurance industry has long been plagued with “nuisance” claims. While in some instances insurance companies make quick settlements of nuisance claims to avoid defense cost expenditures, in others, insurers will attempt to resist such claims to avoid setting a precedent, thereby sending a message to the plaintiff’s bar that nuisance claims will not be honored. Considering that defense costs are deducted from the policy’s aggregate limits, either course of action places an insurance company in a difficult position. … “

CLAIM AUDITING

The claims audit is the anathema of day-to-day claim operations. Nothing is more disruptive. Yet, if properly defined, nothing is more informative and helpful in improving a claim management program. This article will examine the need for a regular auditing program and provide a recipe for a three-dimensional approach to the process in order to maximize the accuracy of the audit results.

The need to conduct regular claims audits has already been widely discussed. With the magnitude of self-insured claims programs (including self-funded programs) and the millions of dollars spent on claim administration fees, what better way to verify whether the money spent has been justified or wasted? In essence, an audit of closed and open claims should accomplish several things.

CONTINUITY AND PRIOR/PENDING LITIGATION EXCLUSIONS IN THE CLAIMS-MADE POLICY FORM

“Directors and officers liability policies have long been issued on a “pure claims-made” basis (a
phrase this writer first coined in 1990). That is, they were written with no prior act date (also
known as a retroactive date). As a result, wrongful acts of the directors and officers dating
back to corporate formation were covered as long as the claim was first made against the insured
during the policy term. To minimize the singular risk D&O insurers were taking (i.e.,
“what probability exists that a claim will be first made against the insured during the policy
term?”), they began using a “continuity date” and/or a “prior/pending litigation exclusionary”
date that was the same as the inception date of the first policy issued. The date the insured
first obtained coverage thus became known as the “first coverage date” so the “continuity
date” could be honored at renewal. This was reinforced by a warranty within the application
for coverage stating that the insured was or was not aware of facts, incidents, or circumstances
that could give rise to a claim in the future.”

A Review of the Modern Claims Made Form

“Since its creation, “claims made” wording’s use has expanded outside of the “profession” and professional liability realm, finding use in diverse liability coverages. But the roots of “claims made” wording, and its most common use still, is found in covering the exposures created by a “professional’s” activities. As seen by the list of true “professions,” professionals are individuals who provide a service to society which, if done poorly, could cause extreme or irreparable personal or financial harm. …

The expansion of claims made policy forms beyond “professions” caused the basic “claims made” concept to diverge and evolve into two distinct forms. One evolutionary branch commenced in professional liability coverages (known also as “errors and omissions” coverages in this series) and the second branch grew out of the financial services industry and the need for directors and officers liability protection, fiduciary liability and employment practices liability (referred throughout this series as “executive liability” coverages).

Although both branches attach to the tree at the same point; greatly different “claims made triggers” have resulted. Additionally, coverage terms, conditions and definitions differ between the two branches.”

Tips for lawyers on working with Expert Witnesses – what’s not taught in Law shcool

“Lawyers are advocates, and as such try to paint the best picture of the facts for their clients. It’s a good strategy in front of a jury or arbitrator, but not with an expert. The non-confidential information about the case that the other side is going to learn anyway should not be kept from an expert. Otherwise, a strongly favorable expert opinion can tumble like a house of cards on crossexamination.

It can ruin your whole day, not to mention the case. Sometimes, your expert can do you an immense favor (if hired early) by identifying a truly hopeless case—one that should be settled before the other side realizes just how good their case is. But he or she can only do that with an accurate knowledge of the facts.

A caveat: the attorney’s opinions about the case and confidential communications with the client should not be given to an expert, or they may become discoverable. There are ways to get damaging information to an expert without breaching the attorney‐client or work‐product privileges”

The World Trade Center Property Insurance Trial: Lessons Learned?

All should use greater care handling underwriting information

Insurers: To Rescind or Not to Rescind?

Areas of Expertise