THE MAYERSON FIRM PLLC

Appraisal can settle the value of an insurance loss without settling every dispute. Marc Mayerson examines premature demands, appraiser bias, and the policy language that determines who may serve.

A later ERISA claim can encounter a coverage gap when an insurer invokes factual overlap with earlier securities litigation. Raytheon illustrates the problem—and the limits of the court’s notice, stacking, and adverse-selection rationales.

By Marc Mayerson | August 30, 2005 For the past two decades, policyholders and insurers have been fighting over whether the cost of cleaning up hazardous-waste sites is covered under general-liability policies by arguing over the nature of that liability. The argument has tended to center on the meaning of the word “damages” and the insuring agreement’s promise to afford indemnification for the sums payable “as damages.” Departing somewhat from the standard version of these a

Jurors who expect an insurer’s runaround may normalize it rather than punish it. Policyholders must establish the standards of proper insurer conduct and prepare their claims carefully.

Insurance coverage matters most when a business faces a consequential loss, a substantial liability claim, or a dispute over who will pay for its defense. At those moments, understanding the policy is only part of the work. Counsel must also understand the underlying dispute, the client’s business objectives, and the practical choices that will shape a recovery. The Mayerson Firm PLLC represents policyholders in insurance coverage and recovery matters and advises clients navi

Trigger asks whether injury occurred during the policy period. Allocation asks what the insurer promised to pay because of that injury. The distinction matters when harm is indivisible.

Sometimes an insurance policy does not cover a claim as written, yet the insurer’s words or conduct may prevent it from relying on an otherwise valid defense. Lawyers usually reach for one of three doctrines: waiver, equitable estoppel, or “mend-the-hold.” Those doctrines overlap, but they are not interchangeable. Each asks a different question, requires different proof, and may produce a different result. The governing law also varies significantly by jurisdiction. The pract

While insurance-coverage law has developed 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 confirmed that defense counsel may face such a claim for failing to investigate the possibility of excess coverage—even where defense counsel has been retained by another insurance company for the benefit of the in

Companies that work with each other share insurance through adding the other company as an “additional insured” in connection with their work together. Sometimes it is not clear that the claim falls within the scope of additional-insured coverage. The New York Appellate Division recently confronted whether an insurer had a duty to defend in those circumstances, answering the question that it does. BP A.C. Corp. v. One Beacon Ins. Group, 2006 NY Slip Op. 05297 (N.Y. App. Div.,