Chubb Insists No Insurance for Weinstein, Who Wants Jury to Settle Coverage Issues

By | June 19, 2018

  • June 20, 2018 at 9:46 am
    FL Broker says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 28
    Thumb down 0

    What a joke…. this guy is so arrogant that he thinks he can go commit crimes and then cash in on is insurance policy(ies) ? I’ve seen it all……

    • June 20, 2018 at 3:46 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      Chubb didn’t use much underwriting expertise when they took the coverage from this serial pervert.

    • June 20, 2018 at 6:54 pm
      Hammer10 says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      News Flash———–They all try to obtain insurance insurance. Just ask a broker that specializes in celebrities and/or athletes. Remember OJ Simpson? CNA paid his civil legal fees under his homeowners policy.

  • June 20, 2018 at 1:52 pm
    PA Broker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 1

    Didn’t Chubb defend Clinton for the same thing?

    • June 20, 2018 at 6:50 pm
      Hammer10 says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 0

      Chubb defended Bill Clinton and paid indemnity under his homeowners insurance policy. What a stretch this was!

      • June 21, 2018 at 12:17 pm
        HoustonAgent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        There’s a big difference, as stated in the article, between one “occurrence” for Bill Clinton vs. multiple, egregious, calculated crimes by Harvey. Intent to commit a crime is the main issue.

        If ONE sexual assault incident occurs, it can be difficult to prove that it wasn’t consensual or happened at all. For this reason, insurance would cover the occurrence because it is possible you are innocent.

        In Harvey’s case, evidence is irrefutable, there are multiple lawsuits alleging the same pattern, and there is complete evidence of intent to commit a crime. A similar situation would be planning and robbing a bank; you just can’t expect your insurance company to defend a thought-out crime.

        • June 21, 2018 at 5:08 pm
          Craig Cornell says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 2

          Except for the fact that there are many allegations against Harvey, just like there were against Bill (MeToo) Clinton, and you only need one case of he said/she said to trigger coverage.

          So if Big Bill got coverage, there must be at least one gray area case for Harvey that could be covered.

          • June 22, 2018 at 12:41 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 6

            Do you think Tramp will have coverage, too?

          • June 22, 2018 at 4:32 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 5

            In the grand scheme of things Planet, just about as many women have come forth against Clinton for sexual harassment, and he has one even with Monica Lewinski who looking back on it says power played a role.

            With you saying will “Tramp” (ignorant method of labeling those you hate) get coverage too it doesn’t work. The left started this whole thing in both defending Clinton, and also throwing fits for not believing women now (mainly to get Trump) and before it was to exonerate a Clinton.

            I guess whatever works for whatever Democrat is in charge is the motto here.

            Politicians it is to be expected, but for people like you trying to say there is a double standard conservatives take advantage of, no, there is no excuse. It’s bluntly immoral, as are you.

          • June 22, 2018 at 4:33 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 5

            So if you didn’t catch, Stormy Daniels is the closest thing we have to a Monica Lewinski.

            And then we have a couple accusers on both sides.

            But of course, let me have your thoughts on Bill Clinton. Good or bad president? Let’s see who has the double standards. You’ve said many times we aren’t allowed on the right to call Trump a good president due to him being a Tramp and sexual abuser.

            So go ahead. Your thoughts on the best president in the last 40 years, go. I guarantee you, you will say Clinton was the best.

            You’re full of it.

  • June 20, 2018 at 6:48 pm
    Hammer10 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Harvey should put his employer’s insurance company on notice (he probably did) under Respondeat Superior. This doctrine DEMANDS and REQUIRES that the employer be responsible monetarily for acts whether lawful or unlawful by the employee. The insurance may not include EPL coverage, but he would probably get a defense. If no coverage then the employer would be on the hook for the entire amount.

    And yes——Chubb paid 50% of the $850k settlement to Paula Jones on the Bill Clinton sexual harassment claim. State Farm paid the remaining 50%. And they shared the multi million dollar expense incurred by Bill Clinton’s lawyer.

  • June 21, 2018 at 11:56 am
    mr opinion says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    I hate to say it, because Weinstein is a pig, but I think Chubb is partially incorrect. I think they’re letting their disgust and publicity concerns interfere with objectivity (understandable). While the exclusions apply to many of the allegations, It’s hard to state outright that sexual harassment and misconduct are “intentional acts.” They might be, but are not on their face. Whether or not this was committed in the scope of employment is in question as well (the D&O carrier is denying because they claim it wasn’t). The other items sited by Chubb are really a stretch. Chubb would have been safer defending with a Reservation of Rights and denying payment of any settlement after the facts come out. By disclaiming outright, I think they opened themselves up to bad-faith arguments. I think they are more afraid of the publicity backlash if they defended rather than the cost of the defense, which I can’t really blame them for. Just from a technical perspective, I see issues with their argument.

    • June 21, 2018 at 12:24 pm
      FL Broker says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 0

      I agree with a lot of what you are saying; however, I don’t foresee a court ruling that his actions of sexual harassment, and misconduct were unintentional.

    • June 25, 2018 at 11:15 am
      Sherry says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      I’ve read at least one complaint against Weinstein. This isn’t a case of “sexual harassment” as the term is widely accepted. This isn’t a crude joke that offended someone. This man raped women. RAPE. Hard not to say it was intentional when the women were screaming and trying to escape while he locked the door.

  • June 21, 2018 at 12:15 pm
    FL Broker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    I am not very knowledgeable about Personal Lines; however, I do know a thing or two about Commercial. Chubb even pointed out that intentional acts do not constitute an ‘occurrence’ which is required to trigger coverage. I believe this was brought about in the 12/07 ISO edition date forms (way after OJ and Clinton). I think Chubb has this one in the bag.

  • June 21, 2018 at 8:09 pm
    John M says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Not to be an apologist for Harvey (GOD–Thanks Meryl Streep) Weinstein, but if National Fire expects to continue to sell EPLI to the entertainment and/or government industries, I would think that to deny at least defense to Weinstein would be extraordinarily bad publicity. Why would I offer a National Fire quote to a high pressure exec only to hear “Didn’t they evade Weinstein’s claims? What are you offering to cover me for?

  • June 22, 2018 at 5:38 pm
    Frank S. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Alleged. Alleged. If you have a dispute with a neighbor, and “allegedly” damage his person or property, the ins company will defend until it is decided that (1) it was an accident; or (2) you did it deliberately. In the former case, it will pay the judgment; in the latter, it will not.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*