• Subscribe to our blog

  Leave Blank:Do Not Change:

  Your email:
  

   

• Recently Written

  • To all Vets and to their families and friends, and loved ones, we pause to say “Thank You.” The photo was taken in Vietnam, circa 1967.
  • ANNOUNCEMENT—February 5, 2015
  • Good Bye Justice Croskey
  • A WORD ABOUT OBAMA, C.S. LEWIS, COURAGE AND OTHER SOUND BITES
  • CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ADOPTS STACKING

• Archives

  • November 2015
  • February 2015
  • September 2014
  • January 2014
  • August 2012
  • November 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
• Search for:

Courts have said insurers “deny a defense duty at their ‘peril’.” They could just as well have said “perils”?  We’ve thought about these “perils.” Here’s a short string: 

 (1) the insured no longer has to “cooperate” with the insurer; (2) the “no action” clause is gone; (3) the insurer loses control the defense; (4) the insurer may have to reimburse the insured for defense fees paid or incurred; (5) if the insured enters into a non-collusive settlement, she or he enjoys presumptions the amount paid was both fair and reasonable; and (6) if the insurer’s erroneous denial of a defense also proves to have been unreasonable, the insured may  recover fees and costs in pursuit of the lost policy benefits. There’s actually more but this is a short blog. (You enjoyed the “pearls,”right?)

Comments