When I went to law school, we studied contracts the first year. I remember my professor stating, “contracts have conditions, and conditions bite hard.” How is it that the lawyers bringing these lawsuits don’t have the simplest understanding of contract law? Why did these attorneys not review their clients’ insurance policies and tell them to cancel them immediately since they did not provide coverage in the event of a pandemic?
Oh Goody, Your assumption those attorneys give a rat’s ass about contract law or law in general is alarming. The fact the judges won’t either is what will screw the pooch for the industry.
You are both assuming that the personal injury lawyers that filed these suits even care about taking these cases all the way to trial. We all know that’s not what they intend to do. The lawyers simply plan to be a nuisance and work toward a settlement on an unmeritorious case and will pitch it to the insurers that its cheaper to settle than to continue the litigation.
This is what the lawyers have been waiting for. I have no doubt that they have attracted a ton of prospects without requiring a retainer, and that they will pursue going after the insurer, broker, or whoever based on contingency. And I don’t think there will be a lot of prospects that would say no to that! It’s going to be tough for agents/brokers to defend their case against COVID 19 claims, even if pandemics are excluded. Lawyers will make up any nonsense story to put the blame on someone because who cares right, as long as they get paid.
This will be the easier win for attorneys. As a producer at a retail agency, I can say that I have never in my career had a conversation with an insured about Pandemic coverage or discussed the virus exclusions in any detail. Could they make the argument that, as a Risk Management professional, I should have discussed it with my client? In hindsight, you could probably convince a jury that I should have even though it was not anything ever on our radar until this happened. That will be a difficult thing for us to defend and I can see an E&O carrier looking to settle instead of trying to have that fight. If the E&O carriers start settling these out, things could get ugly.
While I agree that insured and attorneys may be temped to go after brokers, I don’t think it’s going to be easy win for them. It’s an E&O if the broker failed to provide something that’s common/standard in the profession. The truth is, the coverage is simply largely unavailable in the market – I read an article that there was only one known program to insure pandemic that was out in 2018. Unless the broker claims to know-it-all, and advises the insured they’re covered for everything, I don’t see how agents/brokers are liable.
Contracts died long ago. When I was in law school (I didn’t finish, I’m not a lawyer) in my first year, the teacher and the journals already noted that contracts were no longer the binding agreement of yesteryear. 30 plus years on, that hasn’t changed.
If the companies win, and it comes to the brokers, it will be about standard of care, and what was known and available in years prior. And that is the best hope for agents, because there wasn’t much available in the way of coverage for Pandemic exposures. Nor is there likely to be going forward, now that people see the costs in real life.
While I agree with many of the comments made in this thread, it’s really not a matter or whether the agent/broker will prevail or not; it’s about the cost and aggravation the agent/broker is going to face when the lawsuit comes. I’m sure there will be lawsuits, because the lawyers will attempt to extract money for their clients from any source, especially when operating on contingency. Yes, the agent/broker’s E&O may respond, but it still takes a lot of time (time is money for an agent) and causes a lot of pain and stress.
When I went to law school, we studied contracts the first year. I remember my professor stating, “contracts have conditions, and conditions bite hard.” How is it that the lawyers bringing these lawsuits don’t have the simplest understanding of contract law? Why did these attorneys not review their clients’ insurance policies and tell them to cancel them immediately since they did not provide coverage in the event of a pandemic?
Oh Goody, Your assumption those attorneys give a rat’s ass about contract law or law in general is alarming. The fact the judges won’t either is what will screw the pooch for the industry.
You are both assuming that the personal injury lawyers that filed these suits even care about taking these cases all the way to trial. We all know that’s not what they intend to do. The lawyers simply plan to be a nuisance and work toward a settlement on an unmeritorious case and will pitch it to the insurers that its cheaper to settle than to continue the litigation.
They don’t even review their own policies… it’s easier to sue than read.
This is what the lawyers have been waiting for. I have no doubt that they have attracted a ton of prospects without requiring a retainer, and that they will pursue going after the insurer, broker, or whoever based on contingency. And I don’t think there will be a lot of prospects that would say no to that! It’s going to be tough for agents/brokers to defend their case against COVID 19 claims, even if pandemics are excluded. Lawyers will make up any nonsense story to put the blame on someone because who cares right, as long as they get paid.
This will be the easier win for attorneys. As a producer at a retail agency, I can say that I have never in my career had a conversation with an insured about Pandemic coverage or discussed the virus exclusions in any detail. Could they make the argument that, as a Risk Management professional, I should have discussed it with my client? In hindsight, you could probably convince a jury that I should have even though it was not anything ever on our radar until this happened. That will be a difficult thing for us to defend and I can see an E&O carrier looking to settle instead of trying to have that fight. If the E&O carriers start settling these out, things could get ugly.
While I agree that insured and attorneys may be temped to go after brokers, I don’t think it’s going to be easy win for them. It’s an E&O if the broker failed to provide something that’s common/standard in the profession. The truth is, the coverage is simply largely unavailable in the market – I read an article that there was only one known program to insure pandemic that was out in 2018. Unless the broker claims to know-it-all, and advises the insured they’re covered for everything, I don’t see how agents/brokers are liable.
Contracts died long ago. When I was in law school (I didn’t finish, I’m not a lawyer) in my first year, the teacher and the journals already noted that contracts were no longer the binding agreement of yesteryear. 30 plus years on, that hasn’t changed.
If the companies win, and it comes to the brokers, it will be about standard of care, and what was known and available in years prior. And that is the best hope for agents, because there wasn’t much available in the way of coverage for Pandemic exposures. Nor is there likely to be going forward, now that people see the costs in real life.
While I agree with many of the comments made in this thread, it’s really not a matter or whether the agent/broker will prevail or not; it’s about the cost and aggravation the agent/broker is going to face when the lawsuit comes. I’m sure there will be lawsuits, because the lawyers will attempt to extract money for their clients from any source, especially when operating on contingency. Yes, the agent/broker’s E&O may respond, but it still takes a lot of time (time is money for an agent) and causes a lot of pain and stress.