Insurance Litigation Law Blog | Regulatory Law | Bad Faith | California | Lawyer | Attorney | Barger & Wolen

Larry Golub was quoted in a Feb. 13, 2013, article by Law360, Winning Insurers Gain Clarity on Defense Duty During Appeals (subscription req.), about a recent federal court decision that found an insurer had not violated its contract when it ceased defending a policyholder after a trial court win on coverage, despite the fact that the victory was later overturned. The case is National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., et al. v. Seagate Technology Inc.

Golub told the publication that carriers will sometimes continue to defend their policyholders after winning at the trial court level if a coverage win doesn't appear to be strong enough to survive an appeal. The reason is that they could end up paying high interest on defense costs they might ultimately owe, he said.

Maybe they should play it safe and just keep defending under a reservation of rights and ensure that they don't have ultimate exposure,” Golub said.

Golub also noted that if other courts agree with the decision, insurers who have won temporary victories will not have to face bad faith claims or punitive damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Law360 quoted Larry Golub in a Jan. 24, 2013, article, Canon Ruling May Spur Unfair Competition Claims in Calif (subscription req.), about the California Supreme Court's ruling in Jamshid Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions Inc.

The ruling, which is expected to spark similar cases, held that equitable tolling doctrines apply to claims brought under California's Unfair Competition Law.

Golub told Law360 that the ruling could encourage more plaintiffs to bring Unfair Competition Law claims against California businesses.

The decision opens up a limited door to avoiding the statute of limitations for UCL claims that involve a continuing or recurring business practice,” Golub said. “Plaintiffs bringing UCL claims in the future will try to characterize claims as a continuous practice to try to fall within the Aryeh rule.”

Click here to read Mr. Golub’s full analysis of the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Larry Golub was quoted in a Jan. 1, 2013, article published on Law360, Insurance Cases to Watch in 2013 (subscription required) about key insurance cases lawyers, and those in the insurance industry, should keep an eye out for in 2013. Among other things, the article mentioned litigation filed over Hurricane Sandy losses, cyber liability claims and a much-anticipated California Supreme Court ruling on whether the state's unfair competition law can be used to accuse insurance companies of bad faith.

Golub's comments dealt with that case before the California Supreme Court, Zhang v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County, which will decide whether policyholders can sue insurers for misrepresentation and false advertising for not promptly paying claims.

Golub told the publication that the state's courts have been split on the issue although insurers insist that Zhang is at odds with the California Supreme Court's decision in a 1988 case prohibiting private rights of action for violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act.

Prior to that ruling, insurance companies raised rates fearing they would be hit with private lawsuits brought under that law, a pattern that could repeat itself depending on what the Supreme Court decides, Golub said. The state's unfair competition law allows for restitution but not damages.

The remedies may be limited, but the breadth of the statute is very broad,” he said. “Since there are so many cases coming out on both sides of the issue, it's one that demands resolution.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Larry Golub was quoted in a Nov. 20, 2012, Law360 article (subscription required) about the National Conference of Insurance Legislators' (NCOIL) new model act to prevent the use of false and misleading certificates of insurance. The Certificate of Insurance Model Act allows state departments of insurance to fine and issue cease-and-desist orders to companies that ask insurance brokers and agents to provide false certificates.

Golub, who represents insurance companies and their agents, said the model act should help resolve problems that arise in litigation when insurance certificates contain information that conflicts with the associated policies.

In a lot of coverage cases I handle, certificates say things that are different from what the policy says, and people try to use the certificates to supplant the policy,” he said. “Having a statute on the books in various jurisdictions would be very helpful.”

Virginia has passed legislation to curb the use of erroneous insurance certificates. Whether other states will follow Virginia's lead depends on how big of a problem they are experiencing, Golub said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Larry Golub was quoted in a recent Daily Journal article about the fact that businesses are finding they need additional insurance to protect them against suits involving claims related to entertainment. According to the Oct. 24, 2012, article, Musicians Lawyer Up Over Insurance "Exclusion," (subscription req.) although it may seem counter-intuitive that musicians or artists would not be covered for entertainment-related activities, “such an industry exclusion is not uncommon.”

Entertainment businesses often must buy additional insurance to protect them against copyright infringement and defamation, because of the heightened risk associated with show business.

Often an exclusion is an invitation to purchase another policy,” Golub told the Daily Journal. “For example, people buy malpractice insurance to cover professional liability and those policies exclude bodily injury, which are covered under general liability.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks