Expert Witness Blog

In the Paige Report: Digest of Important Decisions from 2009, insurance broker expert witness David H. Paige writes:

Life insurance agents’ client held to be insured CEO, and agent held not liable to investor in CEO’s company.

Part 2 -Implications for Agent/Broker Liability: Policyholder’s should not assume that they have a right to legal recourse if an insurance broker who is placing insurance to their benefit makes an error. In many situations, the court will only allow a legal remedy to those who the court considers to be the direct “client” of the insurance agent or broker. This decision is an example of the limitations that many courts place on the range of individuals who may seek compensation for what they believe to be insurance agent or broker misconduct.

Medical expert witnesses at Medical Opinions Associates write on tort reform:

Let’s clarify the issue. Advocates of “tort reform” are really arguing for lower incidence of medical malpractice awards, smaller dollar awards, and lower medical malpractice insurance premiums for physicians. They also hope to reduce the level of “defensive medicine”, the result of which is higher medical cost in response to the fear of being sued.

According to the National Practitioner Data Bank, the number and dollar value of medical malpractice award payouts has been flat since 1991, and have actually declined since 2001.The figures presented by the National Association of Insurance Commissions back this up. Public Citizens’ Congress Watch in Washington, D.C. reports that medical malpractice award payments declined 13.6% from 2001 through 2004 (the latest data available). Award payments of $1 million or more actually fell 56% from 1991 through 2004. According to a Harvard University study, very few medical errors ever result in legal claims – only one claim per 7.6 injuries ever results in legal action. Of those claims, plaintiffs drop 9 of every 10 that are initiated. Let’s at least admit that a case made solely on the basis of the “exploding incidence” of medical malpractice claims and awards has its problems.

A major revision to the federal rules governing expert witness reports is on track to take effect in December. No longer would Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow full discovery of draft expert reports and require broad disclosure of any communications between an expert and trial counsel, as has been the case ever since the rule’s revision in 1993.

Instead, under proposed amendments to Rule 26, those communications would come under the protection of the work-product doctrine. The amendments would prohibit discovery of draft expert reports and limit discovery of attorney-expert communications. Still allowed would be full discovery of the expert’s opinions and of the facts or data used to support them.

For more, see ipFrontline.com.

In the Paige Report: Digest of Important Decisions from 2009, insurance broker expert witness David H. Paige writes:

Life insurance agents’ client held to be insured CEO, and agent held not liable to investor in CEO’s company.

A frequent issue confronting many courts involves what legal duty an insurance agent or broker has to a person or entity who the broker knows will benefit from insurance proceeds, but is not the insurance agent/broker’s client. Various courts have answered this question differently depending upon the legal precedent in their state and the facts of a given case. In this case, a court determined that the beneficiary of a key man life insurance policy had no ability to hold an insurance broker responsible for the investor’s own lack of attention to its transaction. In this decision, a Louisiana court* recently held that an insurance agent generally owes no duty to anyone other than her client to secure a certain amount of insurance coverage. In this case, the CEO of a Louisiana company had asked his insurance broker to obtain life insurance, partially to the benefit of an investor in the corporation. After the death of the CEO, the investor found that the life insurance actually placed was not at the levels expected by the investor. The Court found that the defendant insurance broker had no contractual agreement with the investor, and had no other duty or obligation as well.

In the Paige Report, insurance agent expert witness David H. Paige writes on whether an insurance broker have a duty to give advice.

California court finds that insurance broker ordinarily has no duty to suggest that insured purchase additional insurance coverage.

Part 2: Implications for Agent/Broker Liability:

In the Paige Report, insurance agency expert witness David H. Paige writes on whether an insurance broker have a duty to give advice.

California court finds that insurance broker ordinarily has no duty to suggest that insured purchase additional insurance coverage.

A continuing issue that has reappeared for years is the question of whether an insurance broker has an obligation to speak out and suggest to an insured that he should be purchasing more or different insurance. The courts have split on this question in different jurisdictions. As a latest example, a California court found that the defendant insurance agent did not have a duty to volunteer that an insured should procure different or additional coverage. Instead, as is the trend in many jurisdictions, the court stated that a duty to advise on additional insurance only arises under very specific circumstances. In California, the court found an expanded duty to advise arises when only one of three conditions is first met: (1) when the agent misrepresents the nature, extent or scope of the coverage being offered or provided, (2) when there is a request or inquiry by the insured for a particular type or extent of coverage, or (3) when the agent assumes an additional duty by either express agreement or by holding himself out as having expertise in a given field of insurance being sought by the insured.

According to a recent study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NTHSA), vehicular fatalities account for nearly 95 percent of transportation related fatalities. Drivers often think that warmer weather means safer road conditions, but the effects of winter weather often make for difficult spring road conditions. As March 20th marks the first day of spring, CURE Auto Insurance provides tips on how drivers can stay safe on the road this season.

4. Allergy Season. Keep in mind that new spring growth often causes seasonal allergies, and over-the-counter allergy drugs can have side effects or interact with other medications to diminish your driving ability. Always know how the medication you are taking affects you before operating a vehicle.

5. Check wiper blades. Poorly maintained windshield wipers can hamper visibility in poor weather. According to the Car Care Council, 17 percent of vehicles brought in for their April check-up had front windshield wiper failures and 12 percent of vehicles needed service on their rear wipers and/or washers.