Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates
P.C.
75 Ponce De Leon Ave NE Ste 101
Atlanta,
GA 30308(470) 294-1674
www.garymartinhays.com
By Christopher J. Tellner and Benjamin R. Messing | August 29, 2017
In the field of insurance law, most liability policies are designed to cover two primary and qualified contractual obligations assumed by the insurer—a defense expense obligation and an indemnification expense obligation. How the defense expense obligation is actually implemented through policy language can vary greatly between types of liability policies. The most frequently encountered liability policies—home, auto, commercial—implement the defense expense component through what is known as a duty to defend provision, in which the insurer assumes control of the defense of a claim and appoints defense counsel to represent the policyholder. However, there is another category of liability policies that do not contain a duty to defend provision but instead contain a duty to advance defense costs provision. These are typically found in higher exposure liability policies such as directors and officers (D&O), employment practices liability (EPL), or individual and organization (I&O) policies, where the policyholder, not the insurer, controls selection of counsel and exercises primary control over litigation, albeit with some limitations. Often, policies containing a duty to advance defense costs explicitly state at the outset that the insurer disclaims any duty to defend. This disclaimer, however, does not end the inquiry. Since policies containing a duty to advance defense costs are less frequently encountered by courts there is limited legal authority interpreting duty to advance provisions. We examine the differences between these two types of polices and how courts applying Pennsylvania law have addressed the topic. As discussed below, despite a duty to defend disclaimer, policies that contain a duty to advance defense costs provision most often are examined under the traditional duty to defend analysis.
By Michael Booth | August 25, 2017
Two related claims in Pennsylvania state and federal courts should not automatically result in the federal court abstaining from involvement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Aug. 21, rejecting what it said was a district judge's overly broad definition of what constitutes a parallel proceeding in state court.
By Lizzy McLellan | August 24, 2017
A Delaware aviation company is arguing Cozen O'Connor gave the company faulty advice on how to get coverage for its damaged airplane.
By Max Mitchell | August 15, 2017
A Pennsylvania judge has denied insurance giant State Farm's bid to end a bad-faith lawsuit that alleges the company refused to reimburse a man who had been charged for stacking insurance coverage even though he owned only one vehicle.
By Max Mitchell | August 10, 2017
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments dealing the interplay between household vehicle exclusions limiting insurance stacking and the state's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. The case at issue should give the justices a chance to revisit a topic the high court has split on twice in the past 10 years.
By Max Mitchell | June 26, 2017
Plaintiffs looking to sue insurance salesmen and financial advisers must be able to show they ceded decision-making control to the defendants before they can pursue claims for breach of fiduciary duty, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled.
By thelegalintelligencer | The Legal Intelligencer | June 19, 2017
For Reed Smith, 2016 was a banner year for the Pennsylvania attorneys in the insurance recovery group. They achieved a wide range of exceptional results for their policyholder-clients, including obtaining what is believed to be the largest insurance bad-faith verdict in Pennsylvania history. Their successes spanned a wide range of industries and jurisdictions, occurring in trial and appellate courts as well as arbitration proceedings.
By Max Mitchell | June 15, 2017
A recent Commonwealth Court decision rejecting a bid to secure insurance reimbursement rates put up a roadblock for lawyers seeking the information, but will not prevent discovery through subpoenas on a case-by-case basis according to attorneys.
By Max Mitchell | May 5, 2017
Just before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was set to hear arguments about what insurance carriers have to do to ensure someone with a single-vehicle policy has properly been given the chance to waive stacking when they buy two additional vehicles years later, the case that presented the issue settled. As a result, the Superior Court decision that was left unreviewed might continue to haunt the plaintiffs bar—at least until the high court gets another chance to look at the issue.
By P.J. D'Annunzio | May 5, 2017
While ruling that a $5.1 million bad-faith verdict against an insurance company should not have been vacated, the Pennsylvania Superior Court also held that the judgment was unenforceable.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Celebrate outstanding achievement in law firms, chambers, in-house legal departments and alternative business structures.
We are seeking an associate to join our Employee Benefits practice. Candidates should have three to six years of employee benefits experienc...
Associate attorney position at NJ Immigration Law firm: Leschak & Associates, LLC, based in Freehold, NJ, is looking for a full time ass...
Duane Morris LLP has an immediate opening for a senior level, highly motivated litigation associate to join its dynamic and growing Employme...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS