BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam On-Demand
  • card_travel Insurance
  • schedule 90 minutes

GEICO v. Whiteside: Navigating Complex Post-Loss Duties in Bad Faith Refusal to Settle Cases

$297.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

BarbriPdBannerMessage

Description

Whiteside examined complex post-loss, tort, and contract duties between the insured and insurer that vex insurance practitioners.

Many state statutes and virtually all insurance policies require the insured to notify its insurer of any lawsuits and provide that if notice is not given, there is no coverage for the resulting verdict. Yet, in Whiteside, the Court excused the failure of the insured to give notice based on several factors including that the insured was not a named insured and did not have a copy of the policy, the insured was not sophisticated, GEICO knew about the claim and had turned down a demand to settle from the victim’s attorney, and the case involved a suit by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate.

Some have alleged that the case bars an insurer from denying coverage after it has failed to accept a policy limits demand and increases the burden on insurers to determine whether suit has been filed. Others contend the case is limited to the unique facts before it. The logic of the case may suggest new theories to plaintiff's attorneys.

Listen as this experienced panel guides counsel through the interrelated and overlapping duties arising from statutes, contracts, and common law when tort and contract theories overlap.

Presented By

Christian A. Cavallo
Partner
Goldberg Segalla

Mr. Cavallo is an insurance coverage litigator representing insurers in high-value cases in state and federal courts. His practice involves drafting coverage opinions and memoranda analyzing his clients’ rights and obligations under complex insurance contracts and providing advice to claims personnel and assigned counsel concerning a wide variety of coverage issues.

Rachel E. Hudgins
Counsel
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Regarded by clients as their “chief contact for high-exposure work,” Ms. Hudgins helps policyholders maximize their available insurance recoveries. She has litigated hundreds of insurance coverage and bad faith disputes in state and federal courts across the country and U.S. territories. Yet, as a seasoned litigator, she also recognizes the strategic and financial value of pre-suit resolutions, helping clients navigate risk to maximize their recoveries. Ms. Hudgins has been involved in a wide variety of unique cases, like parasailing-related injuries, fraternity party injuries, blockades at the Indian-Nepali border, mass livestock deaths, exploding e-cigarettes, art provenance investigations, and free-fall drops at county fairs. Her practice spans catastrophic injury claims (premises, workplace, auto, trucking, aviation, environmental, firearm, opioid, extreme sports, and entertainment), property damage disputes (natural disasters and builder’s risk), C-suite subpoenas and investigations, art provenance issues, and trade credit claims. 

F. Inge Johnstone
Partner
Johnstone Carroll LLC

Mr. Johnstone has litigated a wide variety of matters, including insurance disputes, business disputes, fraud, personal injury, maritime injuries, and property litigation. He has tried cases in both state and federal courts and has been published nationally. He has represented plaintiffs in suits involving insurance bad faith, personal injury, health care, exposure to toxic chemicals, defective pharmaceutical drugs and products (including PPA, Vioxx, and Renu by Bausch & Lomb), the mishandling of private consumer data by a major discount retailer, banking fraud, and real estate fraud.

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Tuesday, July 27, 2021

  • schedule

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  1. Background of the case
  2. The certified questions
  3. Relationship between loss of coverage and tort liability

The panel will review these and other important issues:

  • Does Whiteside effectively bar an insurer from denying coverage after it has failed to accept a policy limits demand?
  • Are insurers required to evaluate the reliability of an insured, and if so, how?
  • How did the issue of foreseeability take center stage in what appeared to be a simple case of breach of contract?
  • How can an insurer "foresee" the insured's unreliability?
  • How does additional insured status affect the duty to give notice?
  • Is a technical "lack of notice" defense valid when the insurer knows about the lawsuit from the tortfeasor?