“By investigating a case aggressively at the outset, it was often possible to have a developed factual matter for analysis within 90 days, maybe as long as 6 months, depending on the cooperation of any third‑party claimant and other sources of information. By having that development, one could set accurate reserves earlier. The insurer would know where it stood, and actuaries could also have access to that data and reassess a particular book of business or a particular program to see how profitable it may be over time and make adjustments, rather than canceling a program as unprofitable, should development and accurate reserve setting take longer, such as years versus months. Another important function was the interaction between claims handlers and underwriters. The two go hand in hand. Underwriters have a certain view of the world and ways they want to approach coverage, but it’s the claims people who must handle the result and keep up to date with the latest case law affecting liability and/or coverage. Such teamwork results in tighter and more successful programs including decisions as to whether or not policy language needs to be changed or the need to add additional exclusions based on developing appellate decisions that might create new perils. That level of communication was important, especially for innovative insurance companies. Where the intent is to cover something as communicated to the applicant, the claim department might not be aware of it, resulting in a claim denial.”

“IN 2010, I authored an article on the dangers of absolute exclusions.1 That article was prompted by an appellate decision in Florida, James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Eng’g, 540 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2008). In that case, an engineering firm that was providing consulting services on whether land had become polluted found that its errors and omissions (E&O) policy, which covered it as an environmental consultant, didn’t cover pollution!”

It is often said that the police and firemen run towards the danger when others are running away from the danger. Thing is, the danger is generally a known danger, not an unknown one.

In today’s business climate more focus is placed on lean operations. This trend is becoming increasingly more commonplace as corporations are divesting of business lines and returning to core competencies. As decentralization continues to grow and corporations are relying on supply and sales agreements with non-related parties, the impact of a supplier or customer’s loss on a business’ operations increases substantially.

I do not truly understand the rationale in suing the company adjuster in a lawsuit against the Insurance Company, since he has no independent duties apart from those of the Insurance Company. However, Directors and Officers of corporations owe fiduciary duties to corporate stockholders and to the Corporate business entity itself.

I was often amazed at what I could only discern as an argument by a Plaintiff’s attorney concerning an insurance claim where he had never bothered to read the policy or have a true of understanding of insurance.

Corporate Counsel is not properly the attorney to specifically respond for the Insurance Company to a suit against the Insurance Company.

Insurance Companies need to strive for competent officers and directors.

On the one hand Insurance Companies invest a lot of money parcing court dicta to discover what the policy might have said in order to change the outcome of the decision, yet on the other hand believes the trial is some sort of Wild West side show and must be avoided at all costs

It appears that the recent change in The State of Michigan workers compensation act extends Michigan’s jurisdiction to all Michigan Residents no matter where in the US (or the World) the resident is hired, works or is injured.

For many small to mid-sized companies there is the overriding element of misplaced trust in the broker and a gross misunderstanding of their own duties.

I have not figured out why reinsurance is not fully regulated, as is insurance. I have heard the logic that the parties to the contract are equally sophisticated, and therefor no regulation is necessary. The problem with that logic is that it assumes a premise that is false. Many of the parties do not have equal bargaining power; they are not equally qualified to enter into the transaction and there are no real arms length negotiations. Many small companies spend more on reinsurance each year then they could possibly receive from the sale of the building they occupy.

INSURANCE INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENTS – The Purchase Order Agreement addresses the importance of using a purchase order agreement and provides a sample document attorneys can modify to meet the needs of their client. Indemnification and insurance language has been carefully selected in order to maximize any available insurance. The purchase order agreement is a business to business contract that is seldom thought of as a rsik management tool. In fact, with the advent of the internet it is rarely used. When purchase orders printed on paper were used the purchase order was on the front of the document and the purchase order agreement (contract) printed on the back. Attorneys should urge their clients to return to the use of purchase order agreements. In our ever increasing litigious society when something goes wrong, someone gets sued. While a purchase order agreement can’t stop litigation, it can create the rules of the game. Relying on Tort alone is not advisable in any situation – especially the business to business transaction.