Duty To Defend & Settle

The insurance company took the position that it had no duty to defend its insured in a racial discrimination case because its EPL (Employer Liability Policy) did not cover such claims. The insured corporation settled the underlying discrimination lawsuit brought by its former employee and then hired Rutter & Russin to sue the insurance company for the cost of the settlement and its substantial attorney fees. Rutter & Russin demonstrated that the insurance company's coverage position was wrong, leading to a settlement of the lawsuit.

The property owner bought title insurance to protect him if any claims were made that challenged his clear title to the property that he had developed. Sure enough, a claim was asserted challenging an easement that had existed for many years. The title insurer said it would defend, but it never paid the insured's attorney fees as they grew larger and larger. By the time the underlying case was resolved, the fees exceeded $1 million. The insured turned to Rutter & Russin for help. It took a lawsuit, several depositions, and a few court hearings, but the title insurer—facing a bad faith claim—eventually resolved the claim for a confidential amount.

The insured bar owner was sued when an intoxicated patron accidentally shot an innocent patron. The injured patron claimed that the shooter was over-served and was obviously intoxicated and should never had been allowed to enter the bar with a gun. The insurance company agreed to defend the bar owner, but asserted that it had no duty to indemnify the bar owner or settle the lawsuit. Rutter & Russin became involved and challenged the insurer's coverage position, resulting in a favorable settlement to which the bar owner did not have to contribute.

Several carriers refused to defend their insured when it was sued for conduct that the carriers did not feel was covered by their policies. The insured hired Rutter & Russin to vindicate its position, and the firm's work resulted in the court of appeals ordering the carriers to provide a defense.

A construction work site accident resulted in the tragic deaths of two men. Lawsuits were brought on behalf of the surviving family members against a number of entities, including an insured whose product — through misuse and poor maintenance — had resulted in the deaths. Because of the high exposure, the insured wanted its liability carriers to settle the cases, but the insurance situation was a mess. The insured, the contractor, and several sub-contractors all had their own commercial general liability policies; some had excess policies; some had umbrella policies; some of the policies contained indemnity obligations among several of the parties; some policies provided for a defense and some did not. The insurers were all pointing the finger at each other and nothing was moving forward toward a resolution. The insured brought in Rutter & Russin to straighten out the competing positions of the parties and the insurers, ultimately resulting in the successful settlement of the cases.

The board of a non-profit agency was concerned that the four wrongful death claims it was facing could put it out of business since its insurers had issued reservation of rights letters and were expressing concerns about coverage. With no other source of funds to settle the cases, the insured agency turned to us to negotiate not just with the insurance companies, but also with the four attorneys representing the victims, leading to a settlement paid for entirely by the insurance companies.

The insurer argued that its insured was not liable in an intentional tort wrongful death lawsuit brought by the estate of a deceased employee who was killed on the job by a drunk driver, but the case was headed to trial and the employer-insured was worried that it could result in a massive uninsured verdict. Working with both the recalcitrant insurance company and the decedent’s lawyer, the firm fashioned a seven-figure confidential settlement that was funded entirely by the insurer.

Dozens of allegedly injured plaintiffs exposed to chemicals over more than two decades, scores of defendants, and at least a half-dozen insurers who had provided coverage to the insured during the time period at issue. The firm was hired to sort out the coverage mess and obtain a defense for the insured-manufacturer from somebody. After extensive researching of policies, three insurers agreed to step forward and provide a defense to the insured, saving the insured from incurring massive legal bills to defend itself in a case in which it probably has no liability.

Even law firms that make their living by defending insurance companies sometimes need help with their own carriers. A defense law firm faced a massive legal malpractice claim when a huge excess verdict was rendered against a client it represented at trial. The defense firm discovered that it was not immune from insurance coverage problems when the former client threatened a legal malpractice claim. The firm hired us to advance its coverage position with the carrier and we ended up brokering a global settlement with the original plaintiff, the ex-client of the defense firm, the ex-client’s insurance company, and the defense firm’s own legal malpractice carrier.