Another Liability Insurer Is Sued For Failure To Pay Defense Costs After Acknowledging Its Duty To Defend
Time 3 Minute Read

Upper Deck Co. has sued its general liability insurer, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., in California federal court last week, alleging that Liberty Mutual failed to satisfy its defense obligations in an antitrust lawsuit brought against Upper Deck by rival trading card maker Leaf Trading Cards LLC. According to the complaint, Liberty Mutual agreed that the allegations in Leaf’s suit triggered coverage under Upper Deck’s policy and acknowledged its duty to defend and Upper Deck’s right to independent counsel. However, Liberty Mutual stopped paying the defense fees of one of the firms Upper Deck hired, and also failed to pay the fees of a different firm.

Leaf sued Upper Deck in the Northern District of Texas in November 2017, alleging that Upper Deck illegally attempted to push Leaf out of competition. Leaf’s allegations of personal and advertising injuries triggered coverage under Upper Deck’s policy with Liberty Mutual. Upper Deck had previously filed a separate action against Leaf in the Southern District of California. Upper Deck retained one firm to represent it in the California action and hired a different firm to represent it in the Texas action. According to the complaint, Liberty Mutual contends that, under its policy, Liberty Mutual is only obligated to pay the fees charged by one law firm. Upper Deck disputes this contention, as neither the policy nor applicable law provides that the insurer may limit its payment of defense costs to those charged by a single law firm.

This lawsuit illustrates an issue that is increasingly arising in the duty to defend context. With increasing frequency, insurers refuse to pay the fees of multiple law firms or attempt to limit the rates paid to independent counsel, even where a policyholder reasonably believes it is strategically necessary to retain multiple law firms, or specifically qualified attorneys, to adequately defend the insured. Accordingly, policyholders should carefully analyze the law applicable to the insurer’s duty to defend, as well as pay close attention to insurance policy provisions concerning the insurer’s defense obligations, the parties’ rights regarding control of the defense, and similar provisions. In many jurisdictions, an insurer is required to pay reasonable attorney rates consistent with the prevailing market rates for similarly skilled and experienced attorneys working on similarly complex matters in the jurisdiction at issue. If the matter warrants, the insured should be permitted to rely on the assistance of multiple law firms and the insurer should be required to pay the related fees.

  • Partner

    Larry Bracken has 40 years of experience litigating insurance coverage, class action and commercial cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Pro bono representation of clients in habeas corpus, prisoner ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 5 Minute Read

With increasing frequency, companies are coming under fire for changes in customer loyalty programs, many of which occur without warning or recourse. Whether it is a persistent devaluation of miles or points, arbitrary expiration dates or some other perceived loss of value, customers and regulators are becoming increasingly discontent with programs that are touted as an added value to repeat customers.

Time 3 Minute Read

California law has become more favorable toward companies facing liabilities based on alleged events spanning multiple years. Previously, California intermediate appellate decisions favored “horizontal exhaustion,” which means that in cases involving a continuous loss, a first-level excess policy that sat over a primary policy could not be accessed until the applicable limits of any other underlying collectible insurance had been exhausted.

But now the California Supreme Court has ruled that vertical exhaustion applies to determine how a policyholder can access its excess insurance policies. Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Cement, 16 Cal.5th 67 (2024) (“Kaiser”). This means that the excess policy for a policy period can be accessed as soon as the underlying primary policy for that same period is exhausted. There is no need to wait for other years’ policies to be exhausted.

In a recent article published in PropertyCasualty360, Hunton attorneys Syed S. Ahmad, Scott P. DeVries and Yosef Itkin examined the Kaiser decision in more detail. In short, the court found support for its decision relying on the language of the excess policies, along with the policyholder’s reasonable expectations and the history of “other insurance” provisions.

Time 2 Minute Read

On February 7, the Emory Public Interest Committee (EPIC) honored insurance coverage partner Lawrence (Larry) J. Bracken II with their 2024 Lifetime Commitment to Public Service Award at the annual EPIC Inspiration Awards. As one of the Emory University School of Law’s signature events, the Inspiration Awards celebrate members of the community who do extraordinary work in the public interest and provide funding for public interest summer jobs.

Time 1 Minute Read

For many, the “metaverse” sounds like some obscure sci-fi fantasyland. You may be asking, where is it? How does one get there? Chances are, if you are reading this article on a screen then you are already interacting with what could be described as the metaverse. One thing is certain though, if the metaverse is to succeed, insurance will play a pivotal role. The metaverse is not without risk.

The Insurance Journal recently published an article by Hunton Insurance Recovery lawyers discussing risk management of exposures in the metaverse. In the article, Syed S. Ahmad, Kevin V. Small ...

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page