A creative and strategic defense crafted and employed by Goldberg Segalla led to our client recovering nearly a half-million dollars in a case involving an insurance coverage dispute tied to a serious workplace accident.

The claimant in the case suffered significant injuries after falling down an elevator shaft. The underlying case involved the elevator company and the claimant’s employer, which was a tenant in the building.

Goldberg Segalla’s client issued an excess policy to the property management company. The carrier for the claimant’s employer, however, denied additional insured defense and indemnity obligations to the other defendants, including to our client’s insured.

Though the underlying case settled for substantial sums, the management company later sued the carrier for the claimant’s employer, seeking recovery of defense costs. Meanwhile, three carriers also sought to intervene in that action to pursue the recovery of a portion of their indemnity payouts but ultimately were denied by the court.

Our client’s defense was led by Goldberg Segalla’s Daniel S. Strick, a Philadelphia-based partner in the firm’s Global Insurance Services practice group, who knew immediately based on prior court rulings that intervention was a non-starter.

With our client determining it did not want to pursue a separate reimbursement action against the employer’s carrier, Dan proposed entering into an agreement with the other carriers, wherein the management company would pursue the carriers’ indemnity reimbursement claims. The carriers would then pay the attorney’s fees on a cost-share basis to prosecute that claim, while also agreeing on the backend to share in any ultimate recovery.

The employer’s carrier argued that various exclusions in its policy prohibited our client’s insured from indemnity protection and a defense. The carrier also argued that its named insured was not liable to the injured person. Goldberg Segalla strongly disagreed, with Dan arguing the carrier waived its right to contest the amount paid for the settlement as a result of its wrongful denial of coverage to our client’s insured.

The judge presiding over the case agreed with Dan and the other attorneys representing the other carriers seeking recovery, handing down a judgment in favor of the management company and against the employer’s carrier which resulting in our client recovering  $450,000.

Our firm’s out-of-the-box strategy of seeking an allocation agreement was instrumental in our client’s success, presenting a unified front against the employer’s carrier and preventing in-fighting among the parties seeking reimbursement. Had that approach not been recommended by Dan, it’s likely our client would have closed its file and foregone any opportunity to seek reimbursement.

Dan was assisted in the case by Michael A. Hamilton, another Philadelphia-based partner and a leader in Goldberg Segalla’s Pennsylvania GIS team.

The employer’s carrier has until Oct. 30 to appeal.