In Ill. Union Ins. Co. v. US Bus Charter & Limo Inc., 291 F. Supp. 3d 286 (E.D. N.Y. 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York addressed the scope of coverage for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TPCA). One of the main issues presented was whether a TCPA violation was within the scope of the insurance policy’s coverage for performance of professional services and travel agency operations.
We explore and analyze current issues and relevant topics to help accountants, attorneys, architects and engineers, insurance agents and real estate brokers avoid a professional liability case.
Illinois’ Statute of Limitations for a negligent procurement claim runs from date insured received the policy, not when a claim is denied.
In American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, – N.E.3d – (2018), the Illinois Supreme Court addressed whether a claim brought by Walter and Lisa Krop, the insureds, against their insurance agent for failing to procure the level of insurance coverage the insureds requested and would have covered a third-party claim, was time barred. Central to the dispute was when the Krops’ claim against the agent accrued.
Insurer May Be Liable to Policyholder for Agent’s Failure to Explain Coinsurance Provision Reducing Coverage to Less Than Amount Requested
Insurance agents are wise to mention and explain policy provisions that may cause a reduction in coverage below what the customer wants to have. And in Florida and other states that attribute an insurance agent’s negligence to the insurance company (enabling a direct action against the company), insurers are wise to devise processes that ensure what is requested by the customer is reflected in the insurance policy.
Solo Practitioners Beware: Failure to Follow Multiple Rules of Professional Conduct Can Equal Indefinite Suspension of Law License
IntroductionIn Erie-Huron Cnty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, 2016 WL 911280 (Ohio Mar. 10, 2016), the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Board of Professional Conduct’s ruling to indefinitely suspend a solo-practicing attorney’s law license. The Supreme Court held an indefinite suspension was warranted due to the attorney’s failure to file bankruptcy petitions on behalf of his clients, failure to return advanced fees, failure to deposit advanced funds into a client trust account, and failure to notify clients he lacked professional liability insurance.
Taylor v. Bar Plan (Mo. 2015): A Reminder About the Outer Limits of Professional Liability Insurance
INTRODUCTIONThis past March, the Missouri Supreme Court had occasion to review whether an insurance policy would cover certain malpractice claims against an insured attorney who was found liable for breaching certain fiduciary duties owed to the client. See Taylor v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., 457 S.W.3d 340 (Mo. banc 2015). Though the Supreme Court’s application of basic insurance law principles was not particularly noteworthy—for example, the Supreme Court applied several long-established rules pertaining to the proper interpretation of an exclusionary clause—several observations by the Supreme Court bear mentioning, if only as a poignant reminder. This article synthesizes those observations, reminding both the professional liability insurer and the insured professional of the outer limits of professional liability coverage under Missouri law.