Legal Developments and Risk Management Tips Impacting the Professional Liability Community.
We are pleased to announce that the Professional Liability Matters blog has been named among the best niche and specialty blog in the country earning 3rd place overall in The Expert Institute’s Best Legal Blog Contest for 2018! The Expert Institute — a leading legal service provider for identifying, verifying, and retaining expert witnesses — …
The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued an opinion which impacts the timing of suits against insurance agents. In American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krop, the policyholders were denied coverage in a lawsuit brought against their son for cyber-bullying. They responded with an action against their insurance agent, alleging that he failed to procure coverage for certain intentional acts despite their request to do so. Although the policyholders sought to impose a heightened fiduciary duty standard, the Court instead viewed the claim as one for breach of contract.
The North Dakota Supreme Court recently affirmed the dismissal of a negligent failure to advise claim based on the failure to establish “special circumstances.” The decision is a nice win for insurance agents and brokers.
Litigation funding has grown exponentially in the past few years. However, the NYC Bar recently issued an opinion drawing a line in the sand when it comes to third parties entering into agreements with attorneys. After issuing its opinion, some of the largest financiers of complex litigation responded with sharp criticism of both the substance of the opinion and its effect of stalling progress in this area. However, the opinion also provides an opening that could lead to the eventual change in ethical rules that underscore its conclusion.
A severance package is pay and/or benefits employers pay employees following a termination or layoff. Often, the employee’s acceptance of the severance will include a release of any potential claims against the employer. Of course, severance packages are not required. In a recent decision, a court considered what happens when every departing employee is not offered a severance package. In Barbera v. Pearson Educ., Inc., the employer had a policy that provided severance pay for employees that were involuntarily terminated. The policy had certain exceptions, including when the employee was terminated as a result of a sale or merger and was offered employment by the purchasing company.
Attention blog readers! We are proud to announce that our Asbestos Case Tracker blog has made it to the voting round in The Expert Institute’s 2018 Best Legal Blog Contest! Over the past month, this contest received thousands of nominations, which were then narrowed to the “most exciting, entertaining, and informative legal blogs online today.” …
Attention blog readers! We are proud to announce that our Professional Liability Matters blog has made it to the voting round in The Expert Institute’s 2018 Best Legal Blog Contest! Over the past month, this contest received thousands of nominations, which were then narrowed to the “most exciting, entertaining, and informative legal blogs online today.” …
The contingency based fee agreement is a common form of representation. There are clear benefits to this arrangement for both attorney and client. Of course there are also risks. In a recent decision in New Jersey, the court concluded that attorneys must properly advise clients about the various billing options before proceeding with an engagement. In this case, despite a written fee agreement, the court struck over $280,000 in legal fees and costs.
A New Jersey appeals court recently ruled that a disbarred attorney cannot sue his former attorney for malpractice in connection with a fee dispute. In an unpublished opinion in the case of Schildiner v. Toscano, the Appellate Division upheld a decision from the Essex County Superior Court dismissing the lawsuit filed by the disbarred lawyer (“Lawyer”), against the firm he hired, (“Law Firm”).
In a recent decision, a Federal District Court grappled with the definition of “direct loss” under a commercial crime policy. The court in CP Food & Beverage, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., concluded that “direct means direct” and an insured’s losses from payment card charge-backs when certain employees made fraudulent charges on customers’ payment cards were only the “indirect” result of employee theft, and therefore not covered under the insured’s policy.