Is There a Duty to Advise?

The Alabama Supreme Court recently issued what could turn out to be an important decision on the duty to advise. The court in Somnus Mattress Corp. v. Hilson, 2018 WL 6715777 (Ala. Sup. Ct. Dec. 21, 2018) affirmed a decision dismissing claims against an insurance agent for alleged negligence in failing to advise a mattress manufacturer to purchase business interruption loss coverage. While the plaintiff manufacturer argued that the agent should be held responsible for the uninsured loss he suffered following a fire that destroyed his mattress factory, the Court held that an insurance agent/broker generally does not have a duty to advise and cannot be deemed to have assumed a duty to advise. The court laid out important exceptions to the rule: (1) the insurance agent/broker misrepresented the coverage in a manner that the insured could not have known from a reading of the insurance policy, or (2) the agent/broker and insured were in a "special relationship."
Continue reading...

Professional Liability Matters Named Best Niche and Specialty Blog of 2018!

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 — holds this annual contest to vet and recognize the best legal blogs out of the thousands that are on the web. In the 2018 Best Legal Blogs Contest — what…
Continue reading...

Insurance Agent Liability Limited in Illinois

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.
Continue reading...

NYC Issues Key Opinion on Litigation Financing

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.
Continue reading...

Sex Discrimination Claim Arising from No Severance

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.
Continue reading...

We Need Your Vote!

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 polls are now open – if you like our blog, please consider voting. How it works: You can submit one vote per blog. In order to cast your vote,…
Continue reading...

Attorney Fee Waived for Failure to Advise of Billing Alternatives

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.
Continue reading...

Fee Dispute ≠ Malpractice

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").
Continue reading...

Crime Policy Coverage: Direct Means Direct

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. 
Continue reading...