Insured v. Carriers
Sometimes compromise and goodwill rule the day. Attorneys that know when an unpopular decision might be the right one in a given circumstance are the attorneys you want on your side.
Lauren O’Brien took on what appeared, at first blush, to be a run-of-the-mill coverage assignment. The carrier issued policies with an anti-Montrose insuring agreement endorsement, providing coverage only for damage which first manifested during the policy period.
The claim, tendered by its plumbing contractor insured, dealt with a discrete water leak at a custom residence. The leak occurred well outside the relevant policy period, and Lauren prepared the proper recommendation and denial letters for the client.
Unfortunately, due to a history of switching insurance carriers with varying policy provisions, the insured was left with three carriers and three coverage denials. Therefore, not long after issuing the denial on behalf of her client, Lauren received correspondence from the insured’s personal counsel, along with a draft complaint naming all three carriers as defendants.
Rather than undertaking the time and expense of responding to the complaint and filing the requisite motion for summary judgment, Lauren advised the client she would attempt to resolve the claim informally. Lauren contacted the other denying-carrier representatives and ultimately convinced both carriers of the merits of saving the cost of responding to the complaint. Ultimately, each of the carriers contributed to resolution for a fraction of the potential cost of defense. Lauren’s client was not the only one impressed by Lauren’s hard work and creativity -one of those other carriers now also looks to Hardiman & Carroll for advice.