Chip Merlin | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | November 4, 2019 The Tampa Bay Times published an article yesterday which should be of concern to all policyholders. Florida’s elected official who then overseas the Department of Financial Services is calling for a 30-day time period for policyholders to cancel public adjusting contracts. One can imagine what is… Continue reading Attacking Those That Help Policyholders Rebuild, Make Claims, and Battle Insurance Companies
Category: Insurance
Public Adjuster Not Entitled to Fee When it Fails to Prove What Amounts Were Owed
Chip Merlin | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | November 3, 2019 Public adjusters sometimes find themselves in disputes with their own clients. Public adjusters should be paid fees for services they perform as promised in their contracts. Failing to provide those services or performing services which harm rather than help the policyholder will invariably… Continue reading Public Adjuster Not Entitled to Fee When it Fails to Prove What Amounts Were Owed
Policyholders—-What Are the Four Questions Every Insurance Adjuster Should Be Asked and Then Required To Answer?
Chip Merlin | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | October 2, 2019 Speaking at the IAUA Conference in San Antonio yesterday, I suggested that every insurance company should be demanding from their field adjusters and claims managers that they deal with their customers who ask these four questions: How much am I fully entitled to? When am… Continue reading Policyholders—-What Are the Four Questions Every Insurance Adjuster Should Be Asked and Then Required To Answer?
California Supreme Court Concludes Notice-Prejudice Rule Applies To Consent Clauses In First-Party Insurance Policies
Andrew B. Downs | Bullivant Houser Bailey | September 30, 2019 When it comes to insurance coverage, one cue to the court’s feelings about an issue is whether it views that issue as a “technicality.” When that happens, good things rarely result. Another cue is when the case turns on an esoteric legal issue of… Continue reading California Supreme Court Concludes Notice-Prejudice Rule Applies To Consent Clauses In First-Party Insurance Policies
California Supreme Court Strikes Blow to Insurers’ Choice-of-Law Provisions
Kevin Brantley and J. Kelby Van Patten | Payne & Fears | September 27, 2019 The California Supreme Court has struck a blow to insurers’ attempts to contract out of more policyholder friendly jurisdictions, holding that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy. Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 2019 WL 4065521. In Pitzer College,… Continue reading California Supreme Court Strikes Blow to Insurers’ Choice-of-Law Provisions