Insurance Scrawl: Defense Archives

May 22, 2007

On Suits and Prophylactics: Recurring Environmental Coverage Issues

Commercial general liability policies provide coverage for the insured’s liability for “damages” on account of bodily injury and property damage and require the insurer to provide a defense to “suits” seeking such damages. Since the beginning of the environmental liability coverage wars some twenty-five years ago, insurers have disputed whether their insureds’ environmental liabilities seek to impose “damages”, are on account of “property damage,” and are adjudicated in the context of “suit[s].” Recent cases have continued to address these recurring issues.

In Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services, Ltd. (Ind. May 1, 2007), the Indiana Supreme Court considered whether the insured’s liability in that case was in the nature of “damages.” The Indiana court granted the insured a somewhat pyrrhic victory in finding that the insurers in theory had obligations to defend, but holding that the liability for which the insured ostensibly was liable was not of the nature of a monetary obligations to which liability insurance applies. The court gave the insured some sympathy in dealing with the policy language: “Synthesizing the policies’ insuring agreements with their respective definitions of capitalized words and phrases is a daunting task, replete with often confusing, redundant, and sometimes circular concepts.” Slip op. at 7.

But the court held that the liability in the civil action in which the insured was involved was not of the nature and kind covered by liability policies. “There is essential agreement among the parties . . . that the primary thrust of the federal lawsuit is to require the [insured] to incur the costs of installing government-mandated equipment intended to reduce future emissions of pollutants and prevent future environmental harm.” Slip op. at 11. In assessing whether there was coverage, the court adopted the now-familiar distinction between (covered) “remedial” and (uncovered) “prophylactic” measures. The court ruled that the government’s action against the insured was “directed at preventing future public harm, not at obtaining control, mitigation, or compensation for past or existing environmentally hazardous emissions.” Slip op. at 14. Consequently, the court found that the liability of the insured was not as a result of “the happening of an accident, event, or exposure to conditions but rather [was directed at] the prevention of such an occurrence.” Slip op. at 15.

In effect, the court found that the liability involved was not as a result of any past or existing property damage, but rather was based only on complying with legal requirements to conduct its operations safely. (Alternatively, the court could be said to have found that there was no property damage yet for which the insured was being held liable.) Accordingly, “the costs of installing government mandated equipment intended to reduce future emissions of pollutants and to prevent resulting future environmental harm” does not constitute covered sums for which the insured is liable because of property damage. Slip op. at 16.

The “remedial” versus “prophylactic” distinction in the environmental context is often elusive (and for that reason alone courts should be chary of denying coverage for bona fide liability). While it is true that insurance policies are not funding mechanisms for the costs of operating in compliance with the law, where property damage has occurred and an element of the damages on account thereof include measures to prevent the recurrence of damage, then the costs of those future-oriented remedies should be (and generally are) covered. When one is dealing with water contamination or air contamination, for example, it may be that the remedy includes measures to reduce the concentrations of the deleterious substance released by the insured; by limiting additional releases of that substance, the water system, for example, is able to dilute the contaminants through ordinary recharges of the system and reduce the concentration below the level of “damage.” In this way, stopping the on-going contribution of the deleterious substance can be thought of as a remedy for past damage (because this type of preventive remedy allows the damage to be mitigated). Were one to freeze-frame the issue, however, and look only at the remedy (and not the reason for the remedy), it might be argued that the measure is “prophylactic,’ that is, is meant to prevent the future release of contaminants.

For purposes of analyzing the availability of insurance-coverage, however, the question is why is the insured responsible for containing future releases. Where there has already been damage for existing releases of contaminants, “stop[ping] that ongoing release is not mere prophylaxis.” Watts Industries, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 121 Cal. App. 4th 1029 (2004)
.

In legal proceedings where the insured faces liability for “damages,” primary CGL insurers will have a duty to defend. Where there is no possibility, however, that the action against the insured can eventuate in a judgment covered by the insurer’s duty to indemnify, then the insurer will not have an obligation to defend. Because in Cinergy the Indiana Supreme Court held that the costs at issue were purely prophylactic and not “damages because of property damage,” the court ruled that the insurers had no duty to defend (though rejecting the rationale of the court below that there was a duty to pay defense costs only as an incident to the obligation to indemnify and thus only after the underlying action was concluded). Cinergy, slip op. at 16.

Even if the insured faces bona fide damages, the duty to defend applies to “suits,” and naturally insurers and insureds have joined issue on whether various types of proceedings constitute “suits” to which the duty to defend extends. Most courts have recognized that enforcement proceedings that can eventuate in a “damages” award are in the nature of a “suit” against the insured, but some courts have equated the term “suit” with “lawsuit” and held that only actions in a court of law – as opposed to an administrative proceeding – can constitute a “suit.” That said, even these jurisdictions may allow a claim for the cost of defense of a non-traditional or non-court proceeding where “suit” is defined more broadly to encompass other forms of liability-seeking actions or where the insurer’s obligation to pay includes obligations to reimburse “expenses” incurred in the defense, without those expenses being tethered only to court-proceedings. The recent decision of the California Court of Appeal in Ameron Int’l v. Insurance Co. of State of PA (Cal. App. May 15, 2007) analyzes a number of different formulations of insuring obligations, cast against the backdrop of decisions holding that the undefined term “suit” is limited only to actions in a court of law. Ameron is a useful reminder to policyholder and insurer lawyers that we need to parse the language of the contract carefully in determining the obligations to provide coverage vel non.

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 12:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

On Suits and Prophylactics: Recurring Environmental Coverage Issues

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 12:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 18, 2007

Does a Court's (Reversed) Disparagement of the Policyholder's Coverage Claim Alone Eviscerate Its Bad-Faith Claim?

A common enough scenario in a liability-insurance case: the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, with the insurer arguing it has no duty to defend. In Acme United Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (7th Cir. Jan. 9, 2007), the question presented was whether an advertising injury liability insurance policy provided coverage for a suit against the insured for product disparagement. In Acme, the district court accepted the argument of the insurer, thus cutting off the ability of the policyholder to obtain recovery of the defense costs it had run up. Where, as here, the appellate court reverses and finds coverage, does the district court's now-reversed ruling effectively impale the policyholder's bad-faith claim?

Acme manufacturers scissors and paper trimming products and advertised that its products were better because they contained titanium. The question naturally arises -- “better”? "better" than what? Fiskars, another scissors manufacturer, believed that Acme was dissing its products, and Fiskars sued on the ground that there really wasn’t titanium in Acme’s products or that it was negligible or not on the blade or didn’t keep Acme’s scissors extra sharp when tested against Fiskars' products that used only stainless steel. Acme turned to St. Paul and asked for a defense, which St. Paul denied.

St. Paul's policy provided coverage for “advertising injury offense” which was defined in part to be “[m]aking known . . . . material that disparages the . . . products of others.” The district court agreed with Acme that its promotional materials constituted advertising and were disparaging of stainless-steel blades, but granted summary judgment to St. Paul on the ground that the disparagement was not of Fiskars’ products specifically.

The Seventh Circuit agreed that the advertising by Acme was disparaging, finding that disparagement results when a “false comparison” is made or when advertising “bring[s] reproach . . . by comparing with something inferior.’” Slip op. at 6 (citing dictionaries). In looking at Fiskars’ complaint against Acme, the appeals court reasoned that “[w]hile Fiskars did not allege that Acme actually named Fiskars’ products in the text of its advertisement, Fiskars’ underlying complaint specifically alleged that Acme’s advertisements were directed at Fiskars’ products and that Fiskars lost sales to Acme as a result.” Slip op. at 7. Accordingly, “Acme disparaged Fiskars products through a false comparison between its products and [implicitly] Fiskars’ products.” Id. As a result, even assuming that the policy requires a specific “other” in the disparaging of “products of others,” the complaint alleged sufficient facts to indicate the disparagement was of Fiskars even without Fiskars being named. As a result, the Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of St. Paul and directed that summary judgment on the duty to defend be instead granted to Acme. (Any further argument that the Acme's ads were not sufficiently focused on Fiskars instead of the broad class of paper-cutting devices presumably should be advanced in the underlying case that should be being defended by the insurer.)

When St. Paul won at the trial court on its motion for summary judgment, we can assume that the district judge endevored to construe the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Acme, construed any uncertain or ambiguous policy language in favor of the insured, Acme, but concluded that St. Paul was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Seventh Circuit disagreed and not only found that summary judgment should not be granted in favor of St. Paul (such that the matter should be remanded for trial), but in reversing the district court ruling it directed that summary judgment should be entered in favor of Acme.

Yet, the question arises whether St. Paul is inoculated against a bad-faith claim on the ground that even though its coverage determination was wrong it was at least a reasonable one – given that the district court judge agreed with it and entered summary judgment in its favor. Putting the question more broadly, if an insurer wins a summary judgment ruling on coverage does it simultaneously show that there are no circumstances that would support the policyholder's bad-faith claim (with respect to the coverage decision itself).

In general, insurers face first-party bad-faith liability only if they deny a claim unreasonably and without proper cause. Here, St. Paul may argue that the district court’s decision in its favor perforce shows that its decision was reasonable. Accordingly, so the argument would go, it cannot be held liable for bad faith.

The California Court of Appeal has addressed the question whether a trial-court victory by an insurer insulates its from bad-faith liability on the ground that the decision alone demonstrates that there was a genuine issue as to coverage (and thus the insurer’s denial of coverage even if erroneously was reasonable). In Filippo Industries, Inc. v. Sun Ins. Co., 74 Cal.App.4th 1429 (Cal. App. 1999), the insurer argued that the trial-court ruling in its favor – though reversed on appeal – established that its interpretation had a sufficient basis as to evidence a genuine-issue as to whether coverage applied. In effect, the carrier argued that a trial court ruling in its favor alone precludes bad faith as a matter of law.

The California appellate court rejected this proposition, reasoning:

“We certainly have great faith in the sagacity and reasonableness of trial judges but we decline to impute infallibility to any court, trial or appellate. . . . . Mistakes happen, but . . . that mistake should [not] automatically result in depriving an insured of [its bad-faith claim].”

Insurers are required to construe uncertain policy language or unclear facts in favor of coverage; consequently, they may not rely on ambiguous policy language to argue there is a legitimate dispute and thus no bad faith. Employees Benefit Ass’n v. Grissett, 732 So.2d 968, 976 (Ala. 1998) (“[I]n a ‘normal’ case, the insurer cannot use ambiguity in the contracts as a basis for claiming a debatable reason not to pay the claim.”); Mixson, Inc. v. Am. Loyalty Ins. Co., 562 S.E.2d 659 (S.C. App. 2002) (Although no legal precedent on point, common meaning of disputed term indicated that insurer’s contrary construction was unreasonable.); Lucas v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 963 P.2d 357 (Idaho 1998) (uncertain or disputed factual record insufficient to preclude bad faith claim).

A trial court’s erroneous ruling on the question of coverage is not sufficient to show that the insurer’s original coverage denial was reasonable at the time it was made. See generally Sobley v. S. Natural Gas Co., 210 F.3d 561 (5th Cir. 2000). Indeed, at trial of the bad-faith claim, the court should preclude the insurer even from offering into evidence the erroneous trial court ruling for a number of reasons, including: (i) because the court’s decision post-dates the coverage determination the decision itself is irrelevant as a matter of law; (ii) an erroneous ruling by a trial court does not establish the reasonableness of the carrier’s initial erroneous coverage determination; and (iii) it would be prejudicial to admit the ruling into evidence because it threatens to displace the role of the jury or risks the jurors overweighting the overruled decision.

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 11:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Does a Court's (Reversed) Disparagement of the Policyholder's Coverage Claim Alone Eviscerate Its Bad-Faith Claim?

The California appellate court rejected this proposition, reasoning:

“We certainly have great faith in the sagacity and reasonableness of trial judges but we decline to impute infallibility to any court, trial or appellate. . . . . Mistakes happen, but . . . that mistake should [not] automatically result in depriving an insured of [its bad-faith claim].”

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 11:02 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 10, 2007

Insurers' Duty to Defend their Insureds Against Intentional Torts

The duty to defend undertaken by an insurance company is an essential component of the “peace of mind” coverage provided by liability insurance protection. Given the breadth with which the duty to defend is ordinarily construed by the courts, the defense-cost coverage of a policy is also referred to as “litigation insurance,” that is, insurance against the risk and burden of suits brought against the insured. Disputes have raged over whether that litigation insurance applies, however, to suits against the insured alleging an – or only – intentional tort.

In most states, the test for whether an insurer will have a duty to defend is whether the suit against the insured might eventuate in a judgment covered by the duty to indemnify, that is, the insurance company’s obligation to pay for the damages owed by the insured on account of bodily injury, property damage, or wrongful acts. If the claim against the insured permits proof of a covered indemnity claim, the insurer has a duty to defend. Thus, if a “lesser included offense” would be covered by the duty to indemnify, the insurer has the obligation to mount a defense. E.g., Abrams v. General Star Indem. Co., 67 P.3d 931 (Ore. 2003) (conversion claim).

Naturally, if an insurer has a duty to defend where the claim or suit against the insured (only) might result in a covered judgment, the insurer’s obligation to defend may apply even though the judgment ends up being uncovered. E.g., Tanner v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 874 So.2d 1058 (Ala. 2003); Automobile Ins. Co. v. Cook (N.Y. July 26, 2006). (Note that public policy does not prevent the insurer from having a duty to defend even if that public policy would bar the insurer from indemnifying the insured for its deliberate misconduct. E.g., Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 4 Cal. 4th 1076 (Cal. 1993).) In this way, the duty to defend is broader than is the duty to indemnify: a claim might need to be defended even if it need not be paid -- or it is uncertain whether initially the claim will need to be paid by the insurance company. E.g., Fresno Econ. Import Used Cars, Inc. v. United States F&G Co., 142 Cal. Rptr. 681, 685 (Cal. App. 1977). (Note if that certainty that there is no duty to indemnify comes into focus from the undisputed facts developed in the underlying case, the insurer may be able to terminate its defense, prospectively. See Firco Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 343 P.2d 311 (Cal. App. 1959); Mayerson, Insurance Recovery of Litigation Costs, at 1000 & n. 16; see also Sterlite Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 458 N.E.2d 338, 344 (Mass. Ct. App. 1983) (holding that an insurer "can, by certain steps, get clear of the duty [to defend] from and after the time when it demonstrates with conclusive effect on the third party that as a matter of fact -- as distinguished from the appearances of the complaint and policy -- the third party cannot establish a claim within the insurance," but that "[w]hat is not permitted is that an insurer shall escape its duty to defend the insured against a liability arising on the face of the complaint and the policy by dint of its own assertion that there is no coverage in fact.") .

But what about the situation where the allegations of the complaint, if true, show there is no duty to indemnify and there is no covered lesser-included offense? Insurers typically argue, often with success, that there is no duty to defend such a complaint. E.g., Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scruggs, 886 So. 2d 714 (Miss. 2004). The paradigm case involves allegations of an intentional tort against the insured the essential elements of which negate coverage.

The intentional consequences of an intentional act may still be the basis for coverage, where the legal consequences are not anticipated by the insured. The Illinois Court of Appeal addressed a recurring fact pattern recently, where a contractor cut down trees on the wrong property. Finding it “immaterial that the underlying complaint alleges intentional torts,” the Illinois court found that the insured did not expect liability for the physical injury of cutting down the trees. Pekin Ins. Co. v. Miller, 854 N.E.2d 693, 696 (Ill. App. 2006).

Recently, the Eighth Circuit was called upon to get involved with a domestic love triangle, in which the insured had an affair with someone’s wife, and the cuckold filed suit for alienation of affections. The policy provided coverage for “loss,” defined as an “accident . . . which results in bodily injury.” The insurer conceded that the injury at issue was bodily injury (though without any physical harm being alleged, cf. Lavanant v. General Accident Ins. Co., 595 N.E.2d 819 (N.Y. 1992). The insurer denied coverage, however, on the ground that affairs of the heart (or body) are not accidents or, in this case, that the cuckold’s injury was “expected or intended” by the insured.

The Eighth Circuit in Pins v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. (8th Cir. Feb. 8, 2007) analyzed the elements of proof for the tort claim of alienation of affections under the applicable law (South Dakota). The court found that “intent to injure the marital relationship” was the sine qua non of the tort. As the court explained, “ ‘the acts must have been done for the very purpose of accomplishing this result.’” Slip op. at 4 (citation omitted). The policyholder argued that the record was not sufficient to find conclusively that he expected/intended injury; but distinguishing prior authority, the Eighth Circuit found there were no circumstances where an “accidental loss was even arguably possible.” Slip op. at 5. The court concluded that proof of the underlying tort ipso facto and ipso jure meant the injury was expected or intended, holding:

[T]he comfort and consortium injuries alleged by [the husband] were sufficient to state a claim for alienation of affections, and under South Dakota law, [the husband] could not recover on this claim unless he proved that Pins intended to cause those specific injuries. In these circumstances, any ‘loss’ to [the husband] was ‘expected or intended’ by Pins and could not be deemed an ‘accident.’ Therefore, State Farm had no contractual duty to defend.

Slip op. at 5. Put differently, the court found that State Farm issued a homeowner’s policy, not a home-wrecker’s policy.

The Eighth Circuit’s conclusion that there was no duty to defend where the elements of proof by definition negated coverage is consistent with a Tenth Circuit opinion decided two months before, Notwen Crop. v. American Economy Ins. Co. (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 2006). The gravamen of the underlying tort in Notwen was that trade secrets were misappropriated and the tortfeasor-insured allegedly used corporate and bankruptcy maneuvers to try to shield its misconduct. While recognizing that unintended consequences of an intentional act still may qualify as covered conduct, the court found that the complaint against Notwen admitted of no such possibility. Compare Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Eastern Atl. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2001). As in Pins, the policyholder sought to argue that there was a dispute of fact whether it was culpable and that those facts should be aired out in the underlying action – which the insurer should be defending. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument in part reasoning:

[T]he argument is patently circular, rendering the exclusion of intentional torts from the liability policy meaningless, at least under the circumstances presented here: it asserts, in effect, that a duty to defend against intentional-tort claims excluded under the policy is nevertheless triggered whenever the insured seeks to defend itself (with the insurer’s assistance) in a lawsuit alleging intentional-tort claims.

Cf. Evett v. Corbin, 305 S.E.2d 469, 472 (Mo. 1957). While courts are reluctant to confer on insureds the power to compel their insurers to defend solely by their incanting a denial of the allegations, policyholders reasonably do expect their insurers will protect them when they are wrongly accused of torts.

Many insurance-coverage lawyers are familiar with the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 419 P.2d 168 (Cal. 1966), but there is a lesser-known companion case to Gray decided concurrently that addresses the important issue of insurers’ duty to defend against intentional torts. Lowell v. Maryland Cas. Co., 65 Cal.2d 298 (1966). Standard liability policies provide that the insurer will defend an insured “even if such suit is groundless, false or fraudulent.” The California Supreme Court in Lowell found this "groundless, false or fraudulent" language to be key in giving rise to a reasonable expectation that the insurer will defend a suit that if the allegations were true would not be covered but where the insured also could obtain a defense verdict of non-liability. (This is different from an insured not being liable for intentional injury but being held liable of the lesser-included offense of negligently caused injury.) So long as there was a substantial basis for the insured’s contention of non-liability, the insurer is required to defend:

The insured could reasonably expect that the insurer would furnish him a defense against the “groundless” charge that the insured had committed an assault and battery against the third party. The insured would not expect that the insurer could avoid the obligation of defense on the ground that such obligation covered only ‘accidents” which were indemnifiable under the policy and that an assault and battery was not such an indemnifiable “accident.” The policy promised a defense “even if [the third party] suit is groundless.”

65 Cal. 2d at 301. Lowell was in some regards an easy case because the insured obtained a defense verdict in the tort case and the policy expressly afforded defense to "groundless, false or fraudulent" claims; the exclusion for assault and battery did not apply (since the insured was found “not guilty”). See Travelers Ins. Co. v. North Seattle Christian and Missionary Alliance, 650 P.2d 250, 254 (Wash. 1982). Thus, given that Lowell was -- if defense were not granted -- an insured who would be left with a gap in coverage for defense costs that inurred to the insurer's benefit (by avoiding a potentially larger loss or a change in the course of the mounting of the successful defense, cf. Arenson v. National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 48 Cal.2d 528 (1957) ), the court reached out to find an obligation to reimburse the cost of the successful defense. Nevertheless, forty years after Lowell insurers and insureds continue to tangle over the applicability of the duty to defend to cases of intentional torts.

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 11:52 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Insurers' Duty to Defend their Insureds Against Intentional Torts

[T]he comfort and consortium injuries alleged by [the husband] were sufficient to state a claim for alienation of affections, and under South Dakota law, [the husband] could not recover on this claim unless he proved that Pins intended to cause those specific injuries. In these circumstances, any ‘loss’ to [the husband] was ‘expected or intended’ by Pins and could not be deemed an ‘accident.’ Therefore, State Farm had no contractual duty to defend.

[T]he argument is patently circular, rendering the exclusion of intentional torts from the liability policy meaningless, at least under the circumstances presented here: it asserts, in effect, that a duty to defend against intentional-tort claims excluded under the policy is nevertheless triggered whenever the insured seeks to defend itself (with the insurer’s assistance) in a lawsuit alleging intentional-tort claims.

The insured could reasonably expect that the insurer would furnish him a defense against the “groundless” charge that the insured had committed an assault and battery against the third party. The insured would not expect that the insurer could avoid the obligation of defense on the ground that such obligation covered only ‘accidents” which were indemnifiable under the policy and that an assault and battery was not such an indemnifiable “accident.” The policy promised a defense “even if [the third party] suit is groundless.”

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 11:52 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 21, 2007

Cone of Silence or Echo Chamber: A Policyholder’s Privileged Communications and its Insurers

An insurance company that receives a claim from one of its policyholders inevitably wears both a white hat and a black one. The insurer is there to help its insured deal with the claim – it may dispatch claims handlers or service providers to help the policyholder in its time of need; the insurer, however, also is the insured’s adversary in the sense that it must determine whether it has any obligation to pay the insured. To the latter extent, the insured and the insurer have directly adverse interests. (The law of first-party insurance bad faith is predicated on the recognition in part of this fundamental adversity of interests between the insurer and its insured, especially at the precise moment when the insured is calling upon the insurer for performance.)

The insurer’s wearing two hats poses the opportunity for mischief when those roles get confused or blurred. Take the example of a defense lawyer hired by an insurance company to defend the insured: the defense attorney plainly has an attorney-client relationship with the insured, the touchstone of which is confidentiality. Assume that the defense lawyer is told a fact by the insured that supports the insurer’s denying coverage: the insured confesses to being drunk while driving, the insured acknowledges that it knew of a latent problem before it purchased the policy, or the insured knew of the potential claim against it for a long time but had simply hoped it would go away and so did not notify the insurer sooner. The insurance company might wish to learn of this fact because it might permit it to terminate its defense obligation and avoid paying anything on the claim. In these circumstances, may the defense counsel tell the insurance company about this admission from the insured?

Ratting out the insured in this fashion would be found to be a breach of the lawyer’s duties to his or her client (the policyholder). What happens if the insurance company acts on this information to deny coverage? Has the insurer breached any duty?

Different courts have approached this question somewhat differently, but no court (to my knowledge) is comfortable with the insurer acting on this information. The Arizona Supreme Court has held that the insurer has committed an act of bad faith if it denies coverage based on defense counsel’s breach of the policyholder’s confidence. In Parsons v. Continental National American Group, 660 P.2d 94 (Ariz. 1976), the court held:

When an attorney who is an insurance company’s agent uses the confidential relationship between an attorney and a client to gather information so as to deny the insured coverage . . . . we hold that such conduct constitutes waiver of any policy defense, and is so contrary to public policy that the insurance company is estopped as a matter of law from disclaiming liability.

550 P.2d at 99. Other courts have adopted an exclusionary-rule approach, barring the insurer from using the information or any fruit from the poisonous tree in service of a denial of coverage Employers Cas. Co. v. Tilley, 496 S.W.2d 552, 560-61 (Tex. 1973); Snodgrass v. Baize, 405 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. App. 1980). These cases recognize that mixing the insurer’s two roles – mixing up its white and black hats – is at a minimum inappropriate and potentially abusive. This double betrayal – of confidence and using the confidence as a weapon against the insured – calls for some remedy.

But let’s vary the situation somewhat, from an insurer that has provided defense counsel to an insurer that has not provided counsel when the insured believes it should have done so. In those circumstances, the insured will defend the liability case against it and separately pursue coverage against the insurer in a coverage case. Routinely, we see insurers seeking discovery of underlying defense counsel’s files. Often, this is seemingly an effort to obtain evidence that will embarrass the insured and sway the jury – for example, a memo from defense counsel to the insured evaluating the liability case and stating something like “the [insured] company’s conduct flagrantly disregarded standards for appropriate conduct and safety and this led directly to the injury.” In a coverage case, the insurer would like to proffer this kind of document against the insured to argue that the insured expected/intended the injury and thus coverage should not be provided. (Moreover, carrier counsel wants to argue at closing that “even the insured’s defense counsel agrees that the insured flagrantly disregarded safety standards, etc. etc.”) Discovery of this kind of document also makes carrier counsel’s job easier because the defense lawyer has investigated and synthesized the facts leading to the liability claim.

Insurers have argued that they are entitled to the discovery of this information in the coverage case on the ground that it fits within the scope of discovery and that, although the documents constitute privileged communications, no privilege is properly assertable as against them. The rationale insurers offer is that they share a common interest with the insured in these privileged communications.

A tiny number of jurisdictions have accepted this argument, and the vast majority of cases have rejected it. In Illinois for example, where the argument has been accepted, insurance companies have an unfettered right of access to defense counsel’s files. Waste Management Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 579 N.E.2d 332 (Ill. 1991). The Illinois Supreme Court reasoned that, even though the insurer was alleged to have breached its contract with the policyholder, the insurers nonetheless shared a “common interest” with the insured in defeating the underlying plaintiff’s claim against it. Because the insurers “shared” in the privilege, relevant materials could not be withheld on this ground. (In other words, like Big Brother, in Illinois one’s insurers are always looking over defense counsel’s shoulder, even where the insurer has breached its contract to perform.)

Thus, even though there is direct adversity of interests between the insurers and the policyholder at the time that the insurers are seeking discovery of defense counsel-s files, the Illinois courts hold that at the time of document creation (as opposed to disclosure) the insurer’s are privy to the thoughts of defense counsel.

Policyholders find this argument preposterous; the insurer may be in breach of contract and unquestionably is seeking bullets to fire at the insured. Ruling that insurers are on the same side as the policyholder and therefore get access to defense counsel’s files confuses the two different roles of insurers – in service of a coverage denial insurers plainly have adverse interests with the insured, and when the insurer has failed to perform they have failed to come to the insured’s aid and rescue (the role that forms the premise for the Illinois courts’ ruling that insurers have a common interest with the insured). As the Fifth Circuit observed in a related context:

We know of no case in which the insured’s duty of assistance and cooperation has been used to force a putative insured to divulge to the insurer every jot and tittle of information which may aid the insurer in defeating his claim for coverage but which in no way hinders the insurer’s ability to provide the insured with a proper defense.

Martin v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 450 F.2d 542, 553 (5th Cir. 1971).

Most courts have rejected the Illinois approach, on a variety of rationales. See Remington Arms. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 142 F.R.D. 408, 418 (D. Del. 1992). One is that, properly understood, the common interest “privilege” is no privilege at all but rather is a shorthand way of considering whether the disclosure of otherwise privileged communications effects a waiver of the privilege. See United States v. McPartlin, 485 F.2d 1321, 3336 (7th Cir. 1979). As a result, whether there is a common interest depends on the circumstances at the time of disclosure. In these circumstances, while the coverage war is en flagrante there will typically not be a common interest. Put differently, the insured’s privilege still exists and may properly be interposed as a basis for refusing to produce otherwise relevant documents and materials. In Re Envtl. Ins. Declaratory Judgment Actions, 612 A.2d 1338, 1341-43 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1992). An insurer cannot force a waiver by the fact that a coverage suit is pending. (Relatedly, courts uniformly hold that the mere fact that the insured has been required to file a suit against its insurer does not waive privilege or put all privileged communications “at issue” (which is simply another variant of waiver principles). See FDIC v. US, 527 F. Supp. 942, 950-51 (S.D.W.Va. 1981) (advice-of-counsel defense places communications at issue and subject to discovery); Long Island Lighting Co. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co., 749 N.Y.S.2d 488, 496 (App. Div. 2002); Home Ins. Co. v. Advance Mach. Co., 443 So. 2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. App. 1983); Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1268 (1994).)

Nor is the insured’s duty of cooperation with its insurers construed as a waiver of privilege. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 730 A.2d 51, 63-64 (Ct. 1999); Martin, 450 F.2d at 553. See also Gulf Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co., 788 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1st Dep’t 2004).

So, insurers cannot compel insureds to provide them with privileged (or work product) information. This is true both informally and in the context of coverage litigation. Nevertheless, insureds and their insurers may wish to exchange defense counsel’s evaluation of a case, for example. Can an insured provide its carrier with privileged communications without fear that it has effected a broad waiver with respect to the tort claimants? Does a policyholder need fear that its carrier will use that communication against it to deny coverage?

Policyholders may wish to share defense-counsel’s analysis with its insurers to facilitate the insurers decision to pay to settle a case. I have found it reasonably common in the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, fiduciary-liability insurance, and errors and omissions insurance contexts that policyholders and their insurers do share privileged communications, reflecting the reality that in many cases the insurers will pay for settlement of the underlying claim against the insured. On the other hand, in the product-liability and mass-tort context, such sharing of information is seemingly more rare.

If an insured elects to share privileged information, is there a risk of finding of waiver? While I am reluctant to provide a definitive conclusion one way or the other, no doubt there is a risk that a court may find waiver.

The starting point for any analysis of this problem is that, in most jurisdictions, there is no insured-insurer privilege. Linde v. Resolution Trust Corp., 5 F.3d 1508, 1514-15 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“we now firmly reject any sweeping general notion that there is an attorney-client privileged in insured-carrier communications”). As the Linde court ruled:

An insured may communicate with its carrier for a variety of reasons, many of which have little to do with the pursuit of legal representation or the procurement of legal advice. Certainly, where the insured communicates with the carrier for the express purpose of seeking legal advice with respect to a concrete claim, or for the purpose of aiding an insurer-provided attorney in preparing a specific legal case, the law would exalt form over substance if it were to deny application of the attorney-client privilege. However, a statement betraying neither interest in, nor pursuit of, legal counsel bears only the most attenuated nexus to the attorney-client relationship and thus does not come within the ambit of the privilege. . . . . [I]f what is sought is not legal advice, but insurance, no privilege can or should exist.

Linde, 5 F.3d at 1515. See also Aiena v. Olsen, 194 F.R.D. 134, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). As the Alaska Supreme Court explained, “communications between insured and insurer are not in the same class as communications between client and attorney, because the insurer may use its information for purposes inimical to the interests of the insured.” Langdon v. Champion, 752 P.2d 999, 1002-03 (Alaska 1988). Thus, some courts have found that otherwise privileged communications lose their protection from sharing them with an insurer. See Go Medical Indus. Pty., Ltd. V. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1998 WL 1632525 (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 1998); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Guide Corp., 206 F.R.D. 249, 250-51 (S.D. Ind. 2001).

Even if both the carrier and its policyholder would benefit from a defense victory over a tort plaintiff, that may not be sufficient to establish a “common interest” to maintain privilege. See Shamis v. Ambassador Factors Corp., 34 F. Supp. 2d 879, 893 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (holding that the fact that two entities would benefit from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, that is not sufficient to find that they share an identical legal interest). What constitutes a common interest has been defined in the following manner:

A community of interests exists among different persons or separate corporations where they have an identical legal interest . . . . The key consideration is that the nature of the interest be identical, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial. The fact that there may be an overlap of a commercial and legal interest for a third party does not negate the effect of the legal interest in establishing a community of interest.

North River Ins. Co. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 1995 WL 5792, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 1995) (citation omitted). The court continued, “What is important is not whether the parties theoretically share similar interests but rather whether they demonstrate actual cooperation toward a common goal.” Id. at *4. Stated further, the same court held in International Insurance Co. v. Newport Mining Corp., 800 F. Supp. 1195 (S.D.N.Y. 1992):

The “common interest,” logically viewed, and New York law supports, which makes the privilege inapplicable, is where an attorney actually represents both the insured and the carrier – joint representation – and accordingly both clients are working together with a single attorney toward a common goal.

Id. at 1196 The International Insurance court found that, while the insurance carrier and its insured shared the same desire for a successful defense of a legal claim against the insured, this was insufficient to find a common legal interest. Id. The International Insurance case involved a defendant-insured seeking to withhold from a plaintiff-carrier materials that were privileged. When the plaintiff-insurer argued that the common-interest exception should apply and the privileged materials (which were otherwise relevant) therefore should be produced, the court disagreed. The court stated:

I conclude that while the insurer had the same ‘desire’ as its insured to have a successful defense of [the actions that necessitated the case at bar], for if coverage was later determined to exist, it would be responsible for any obligation of its insured remaining, this in my view is an insufficient ‘common interest’ to warrant invasion of the attorney-client relationship with the privilege . . .

By extension, and this is the key point, if the insured provided these types of materials to its insurers, then it is providing the communications to an entity that does not share a common interest; therefore, privilege (or immunity) may not be preserved vis a vis (other) third parties. Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance Corp., 351 N.Y.S.2d 767, 768 (App. Div. 1974).

In Go Medical Industries Pty, Ltd. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1998 WL 1632525, a patent-infringement action, the defendant sought production of the plaintiff’s communications with its insurance carrier, which included certain opinions of its lawyer that had been provided to the carrier. The plaintiff alleged the common-interest extension of the attorney-client privilege shielded these documents from discovery. The court in Go Medical disagreed, finding that the plaintiff and its insurance carrier did not share common legal interests:

Go Medical’s [the plaintiff] purpose in providing these documents to CIC [its insurance carrier] was to try to obtain coverage from CIC for expenses Go Medical would incur in litigation to stop the alleged infringement of its patent. However, whereas Go Medical’s interest is in protecting its patent, CIC has no interest in the [] patent. CIC’s interest in Go Medical’s infringement claim is limited to CIC’s coverage of Go Medical’s litigation expenses. An insurer’s contractual obligation to pay its insured’s litigation expenses does not, by itself, create a common interest between the insurer and the insured that is sufficient to warrant application of the common interest rule of the attorney client privilege.

Id. at *3.

So, can communications with an insurer be conducted in a manner that does not result in a waiver? Certainly, if the insurer acknowledges coverage and takes over control of the defense, unquestionably in that circumstance the insurer is functioning as the insured’s lawyer and is entitled to no less protection. When the insurer has not yet provided full-throated acknowledgement of coverage, the insured and the insurer need to lay a foundation to show that, in the particular circumstance, the exchange of privileged information should not be deemed to be a waiver. To accomplish this, the parties are advised to make clear that there is a purpose related to the settlement or defense of the underlying case that justifies sharing the information – that is, the justifies extending the cone of silence over lawyer-client communications of the policyholder to include the carrier. (The carrier’s merely sharing the hope that the policyholder may win the liability case is not likely to be sufficient basis for proving sufficient commonality of interest. E.g., Shamis, 34 F. Supp. 2d at 893.)

So the issue for all counsel involved – policyholder, carrier, tort plaintiffs, government investigators – is whether a foundation has been established that satisfies a showing that in the particular circumstance disclosure of privileged/work product material is consistent with preserving the confidentiality protections we otherwise protect them with. See Cutchin v. State of Maryland, 143 Md. App. 81 (2002); Metroflight Inc. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 403 F. Supp. 1195 (N.D. Tex. 1975); Reavis v. Metro Property & Liability Ins. Co., 117 F.R.D. 160 (S.D. Cal. 1987); Bellman v. District Court, 531 P.2d 632 (Colo. 1975); Grand Union Co. v. Patrick, 246 So.2d 474 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971); People v. Ryan, 197 N.E.2d 15 (Ill. 1964). Some courts have ruled that statements to an insurance adjuster are protected by the work-product doctrine, and thus the plaintiff who later sues the insured making the statement cannot obtain its discovery. In re Fontenot, 13 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. App. 2000); Heidebrink v. Moriwaki, 706 P.2d 213 (Wash. 1985). Some courts have employed seemingly more stringent proof requirements to show that privilege should be preserved. In Re Bevill, Bresler & Schulman Asset Mgmt Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir. 1986); Government of Virgin Islands v. Joseph, 685 F.2d 857, 862 (3d Cir. 1982); Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n v. Sweeney, 29 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1994); Ft. Howard Paper Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 64 F.R.D. 694 (E.D. Wisc. 1974); Travelers Ins. Cos. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 3d 436 (1983).

The key lesson is that, if one desires to preserve the privilege (or immunity) that would otherwise attach to a statement shared with an insurance company, the circumstances surrounding sharing the statement should indicate that it is being provided to assist the insurer in the defense or in evaluating the settlement of the claim. E.g., Exxon Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 903 F. Supp. 1007, 1010 (E.D. La. 1995). In other words, to the extent that one can show that the insurer’s role is in protecting the interest of the insured, then the communication is more likely to remain protected. If the role of the insurance company is more ambiguous – that is, if it is unclear which hat the insurer is wearing and whether the statement might be used against the insured in service of a denial of coverage – then the risk of a court finding waiver is increased. See Hedebrink, 706 Pl.2d at 220 (Goodloe, J., dissenting) (“The use of the statement for a purpose adverse to the interest of the insured is certainly inconsistent with the claim of privilege upon his behalf.”); see also Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 151 F.R.D. 268, 277 (D. Vt. 1993); cf. Great American Surplus Lincs, Inc. v. Ace Oil Co., 120 F.R.D. 533 (E.D. Cal. 1988) (preserving insurer’s privilege re information shared with reinsurer). Ideally, the policyholder and the insurer will enter into an agreement that pledges the insurer will maintain the communication in confidence, is receiving the communication for the purpose of evaluating the defense of the claim or settlement of the claim, and will not use the communication as a basis to deny coverage to the insured (subject to the insurer’s being able to use the documents in defense of a failure-to-settle bad-faith claim and allowing the insurer to seek the identical discovery in a coverage case against the insured, though without being able to argue that sharing the information effected a waiver). Such an approach differentiates the insurer's white hat and black hat and allows the policyholder's privileged information to be kept under the insurer's hat.

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 4:08 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Cone of Silence or Echo Chamber: A Policyholder’s Privileged Communications and its Insurers

When an attorney who is an insurance company’s agent uses the confidential relationship between an attorney and a client to gather information so as to deny the insured coverage . . . . we hold that such conduct constitutes waiver of any policy defense, and is so contrary to public policy that the insurance company is estopped as a matter of law from disclaiming liability.

We know of no case in which the insured’s duty of assistance and cooperation has been used to force a putative insured to divulge to the insurer every jot and tittle of information which may aid the insurer in defeating his claim for coverage but which in no way hinders the insurer’s ability to provide the insured with a proper defense.

An insured may communicate with its carrier for a variety of reasons, many of which have little to do with the pursuit of legal representation or the procurement of legal advice. Certainly, where the insured communicates with the carrier for the express purpose of seeking legal advice with respect to a concrete claim, or for the purpose of aiding an insurer-provided attorney in preparing a specific legal case, the law would exalt form over substance if it were to deny application of the attorney-client privilege. However, a statement betraying neither interest in, nor pursuit of, legal counsel bears only the most attenuated nexus to the attorney-client relationship and thus does not come within the ambit of the privilege. . . . . [I]f what is sought is not legal advice, but insurance, no privilege can or should exist.

A community of interests exists among different persons or separate corporations where they have an identical legal interest . . . . The key consideration is that the nature of the interest be identical, not similar, and be legal, not solely commercial. The fact that there may be an overlap of a commercial and legal interest for a third party does not negate the effect of the legal interest in establishing a community of interest.

The “common interest,” logically viewed, and New York law supports, which makes the privilege inapplicable, is where an attorney actually represents both the insured and the carrier – joint representation – and accordingly both clients are working together with a single attorney toward a common goal.

I conclude that while the insurer had the same ‘desire’ as its insured to have a successful defense of [the actions that necessitated the case at bar], for if coverage was later determined to exist, it would be responsible for any obligation of its insured remaining, this in my view is an insufficient ‘common interest’ to warrant invasion of the attorney-client relationship with the privilege . . .

Go Medical’s [the plaintiff] purpose in providing these documents to CIC [its insurance carrier] was to try to obtain coverage from CIC for expenses Go Medical would incur in litigation to stop the alleged infringement of its patent. However, whereas Go Medical’s interest is in protecting its patent, CIC has no interest in the [] patent. CIC’s interest in Go Medical’s infringement claim is limited to CIC’s coverage of Go Medical’s litigation expenses. An insurer’s contractual obligation to pay its insured’s litigation expenses does not, by itself, create a common interest between the insurer and the insured that is sufficient to warrant application of the common interest rule of the attorney client privilege.

Id. at *3.

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 4:08 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

December 23, 2006

Caveat Advocat: Defense Lawyers as Coverage Lawyers

While insurance-coverage law has developed over the last 20 years into a rarefied specialty practice, lawyers who handle the defense of liability cases cannot punt on considering coverage issues – or they risk malpractice claims by their disgruntled clients. The New York Appellate Division recently confirmed that defense counsel may be exposed for failing to investigate the possibility of coverage – even where defense counsel has been retained by another insurance company for the benefit of the insured defendant.

In Pacific v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP (N.Y. App.Div. Dec. 19, 2006), the plaintiff – who was the defendant in a liability case – sued defense counsel for malpractice – not for dissatisfaction in how the defense case was handled but rather for failing to help in securing coverage in the event the defense mounted was unsuccessful. As the New York court framed the question:

The principal issue presented on this appeal concerns whether a law firm, retained by a primary carrier to defend its insured in a pending action, has any obligation to investigate whether the insured has excess coverage available and, if so, to file a timely notice of excess claim on the insured’s behalf.

In Pacific, the insured was covered under a policy from certain underwriters at Lloyd’s for $1 million. The underlying plaintiff sought damages in excess of $50 million, so in addition to appointing defense counsel to defend the insured against the suit, Lloyd’s advised that the insured might wish to investigate whether additional excess coverage might be available.

The Wilson, Elser firm defended the suit against the insured, but lost a summary-judgment motion establishing the insured’s liability. Two months later, before trial of the damages claim was set to commence, the firm, on behalf of the insured, tendered the defense to AIG, which denied coverage in part on the ground that it had not received prompt notice.

Several months later, the underlying plaintiff obtained a verdict against the insured for roughly $6 million, well in excess of Lloyd’s primary insurance policy limits. “In its [malpractice] complaint, the [insured] claimed that the [law firm] had been negligent in failing to advise [AIG] of the underlying action or, alternatively, that its failure to do so constituted a breach of contract.”

The appellate court (ruling on a motion to dismiss) first examined whether the retention arrangement between the law firm and the insured made clear that the firm would not have any responsibility for investigating or pursuing coverage. The court in effect presumed that when a lawyer is retained to defend a case her responsibility includes investigating the possibility of insurance coverage. Cf. Jordache Enterprises v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (Cal. July 30, 1998). As the court rules:

Thus, a legal malpractice plaintiff need not, in order to assert a viable cause of action, specifically plead that the alleged malpractice fell within the agreed scope of the defendant’s representation. Rather, a legal malpractice defendant seeking dismissal . . . must ender document evidence conclusively establishing that the scope of its representation did not include matters relating to the alleged malpractice.

. . .

We turn, then, to the central question presented on this appeal: Whether a law firm retained by a carrier has any duty to ascertain whether the insured it was hired to represent has available excess coverage, or to file a timely notice of excess claim on the insured’s behalf. The issue is best addressed by examining two questions. The first is whether, under ordinary circumstances, an attorney retained directly by a defendant in a personal injury action has any obligation to investigate the availability of insurance for his or her client and to see that timely notices of claim are served; the second is whether, if such an obligation exists, it also binds an attorney who is retained to defendant a personal injury action, not by the defendant directly, but by the defendant’s carrier.

The law firm argued that because it was appointed by an insurance company to represent the insured in the liability litigation it was plain that the scope of its representation was confined by the scope of the carrier’s duty to defend (which is not ordinarily thought to include insurance-recovery issues) and that there was an implicit conflict of interest when defense counsel in a tripartite relationship is asked to opine on coverage issues. The New York Appellate Decision rejected these arguments, finding that there was no legal rule that prevented a lawyer from being sued for breach of professional duty when he fails to pursue coverage in connection with a matter he is defending.

One judge dissented strongly, writing:

The insured’s contractual responsibility to notify its alleged excess insurance carrier cannot be avoided or diminished through the subterfuge of attempting to foist such obligation on an unsuspecting law firm selected by the primary carrier particularly where, as here, the law firm may have been assigned the case after the time to notify the excess carrier had expired.

Note that Wilson, Elser has not been found to have breached any duty to its former client. The issue on appeal is only whether a duty to investigate insurance coverage did not exist as a matter of law. As a matter of fact, the firm can seek to show that the scope of its representation was confined or that it was reasonable in not pursuing the excess coverage here or that the plaintiff cannot establish causation or damages.

The lessons of the Pacific case for defense lawyers include (i) do not shirk investigating whether there is coverage for the case being defended or (ii) make clear in the retention letter that defense counsel’s representation is limited to the defense of the case and expressly does not include advising on or investigating insurance coverage.

I think that the ordinary policyholder will not react negatively to a retention letter that states that the scope of counsel’s representation is limited by the paying insurer’s duty to defend and does not include advising the insured on the availability of coverage as against the defending insurer or against any other insurance company. But in the absence of an agreement making clear that defense counsel will not be advising about insurance, the lawyer may be exposed to a potential claim of breach of professional duty from the failure to pursue offsetting insurance for the client-defendant-insured. (And the law firm should look to its own E&O or professional-liability insurance for protection in the event a former client makes such a claim.)

Posted by Marc Mayerson at 6:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Caveat Advocat: Defense Lawyers as Coverage Lawyers

The principal issue presented on this appeal concerns whether a law firm, retained by a primary carrier to defend its insured in a pending action, has any obligation to investigate whether the insured has excess coverage available and, if so, to file a timely notice of excess claim on the insured’s behalf.

Thus, a legal malpractice plaintiff need not, in order to assert a viable cause of action, specifically plead that the alleged malpractice fell within the agreed scope of the defendant’s representation. Rather, a legal malpractice defendant seeking dismissal . . . must ender document evidence conclusively establishing that the scope of its representation did not include matters relating to the alleged malpractice.

. . .

We turn, then, to the central question presented on this appeal: Whether a law firm retained by a carrier has any duty to ascertain whether the insured it was hired to represent has available excess coverage, or to file a timely notice of excess claim on the insured’s behalf. The issue is best addressed by examining two questions. The first is whether, under ordinary circumstances, an attorney retained directly by a defendant in a personal injury action has any obligation to investigate the availability of insurance for his or her client and to see that timely notices of claim are served; the second is whether, if such an obligation exists, it also binds an attorney who is retained to defendant a personal injury action, not by the defendant directly, but by the defendant’s carrier.