Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Pre-Tender Defense Costs: To Pay or Not to Pay?
Frequently, insureds fail to provide timely notice and tender of defense to their general liability insurers. This can occur for a variety of reasons. First, an insured may not know that a policy covers the claims in the suit against it or, in the case of a company covered by multiple policies over numerous years, that a policy even exists. Second, an insured may knowingly choose to forego notice on the belief that the claim is frivolous, can be easily defended, or that notice will result in higher renewal premiums. Third, an insured that is named as an additional insured under an employer's or subcontractor's policy or is covered by policies issued by multiple insurers may deliberately choose to have only certain insurers represent its interests. When an insured later learns of the existence of a policy, finds the claims cannot be easily defeated, or discovers that it may be held liable, it often turns to its insurers after incurring substantial pre-tender defense costs. Regardless of the reasons for delayed notice, the repercussions for both the insured and the insurer can be significant. The issue is compounded because courts are split as to how pre-tender costs are treated, providing a spectrum of results.
At one end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions ' including Minnesota, Hawaii, and Louisiana ' have adopted a bright-line rule: An insurer is not responsible for pre-tender defense costs even if the insurer was not prejudiced by the delayed notice. For instance, in Gully & Associates, Inc. v. Wausau Insurance Cos., 536 So. 2d 816 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1988), the court was faced with the question of whether a liability insurer was obligated to reimburse an insured for defense costs incurred prior to the insurer's receipt of notice. Holding that an insurer's duty to defend does not arise until notice of the litigation has been provided, the court reasoned that an insurer is not liable for pre-tender defense costs and need not show prejudice unless it is attempting to use late notification as a basis for denying all coverage (including both defense and indemnity). But see, Rovira v. LaGoDa, Inc, 551 So. 2d 790, 794 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990) (improperly citing Gully).
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.