Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Coverage of Fees

Insurer Must Pay Defense Costs in Underlying Litigation

February 20, 2024

A recent Law 360 story by Jennifer Mandato, “Insurer Must Pay Defense Costs In Newspaper Shooting Row”, reports that an insurer owed coverage to the parent companies of a Maryland newspaper for the legal fees resulting from two underlying lawsuits brought by the victims and their families after a 2018 mass shooting, an Illinois federal judge ruled. 

In his order, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly ruled that ACE American Insurance Co. breached its duty to defend Tribune Publishing Co. and The Baltimore Sun Co. by refusing to pay for or reimburse any portion of the defense expenses incurred from the underlying litigation.  How much coverage is afforded is still undetermined.

Judge Kennelly determined that Tribune and the Sun were entitled to retain independent counsel, and therefore ACE can't "viably argue" that the publishers' $4 million in defense fees and expenses were considered voluntary, relieving it of the duty to reimburse them.

Tribune and the Sun filed suit in December 2022, accusing the Chubb unit of impermissibly trying to "allocate" some of the company's defense costs to its commercial general liability policy, which has a $1 million deductible that effectively cancels out a corresponding $1 million coverage limit.  Allocating defense costs to the CGL policy would improperly reduce the amount of defense costs covered under the Tribune's worker's compensation policy, which also has a $1 million deductible and $1 million policy limit, but the deductible doesn't erode the policy limit, filings show.

The coverage dispute stems from a June 2018 shooting at the Capital Gazette's offices in Annapolis, Maryland.  The gunman, Jarrod Ramos, broke into the office space and opened fire, killing five employees and injuring others, according to Tribune's complaint.  Ramos was sentenced to multiple life sentences in September 2021.  Tribune was later named in a pair of lawsuits filed by 10 plaintiffs seeking damages for the shooting, the publishing company said.  The underlying suits asserted claims for wrongful death, survival and negligence based on premises liability.

According to court records, it's undisputed that Tribune paid over $900,000 in workers' compensation claims filed on behalf of the victims and their families and that ACE was aware that the publisher did so.  In September, Tribune sought a determination that ACE breached its duty to defend and had no valid reason to deny coverage of the underlying suits under their employers' liability policy.

Judge Kennelly granted the publisher's request, finding that because ACE agreed to defend Tribune and the Sun — even under a reservation of rights — it was obligated to continue to defend the insureds until it subsequently sought and obtained a judgment relieving it of any obligation.  While ACE argued that Tribune wrongfully appointed independent counsel, Judge Kennelly disagreed.

Instead, he found that the insurer knew Tribune and the Sun were represented by outside counsel in the underlying suits, but failed to put forth any evidence showing that it expressed disapproval of the publishers' choice.  Judge Kennelly also supported Tribune's notion that a conflict of interest entitled it to retain independent counsel.

According to the order, Tribune and the Sun had a "strong interest" in proving that they were excluded from the underlying suits because of workers' compensation exclusivity laws, and thus would be entitled to coverage under the workers' compensation policy rather than the CGL policy, to the detriment of ACE.

Although the court concluded that ACE owed the publishers' reimbursement for any portion of their defense expenses, Judge Kennelly held that the finding didn't necessarily entitle them to coverage of the entirety of their claimed defense expenses.   An insurer may only be required to cover reasonable defense expenses, an amount which remains unsolved at present, according to the order.

Former CEO Sues Over Legal Fee Advancement

January 19, 2024

A recent Law 360 story by Jeff Montgomery, “Joonko Ex-CEO Sues in Del. for Legal Fees Related to Probe”, reports that the former CEO of AI-powered employee recruitment venture Joonko Diversity Inc. has sued the company for legal fee advancement in Delaware's Court of Chancery, alleging corporate failure to cover attorney expenses that total more than $300,000 and are still rising, related to still-under-wraps investigations.  The suit from former CEO and company founder Ilit Raz accuses the company of refusing to advance the money despite obligations established in its bylaws, an indemnification agreement and Delaware law.

Joonko has been in the news amid reports of alleged misconduct by Raz. A June statement by Joonko's board reported the discovery of "misstatements in financial reporting" and asserted that Raz was "was found to have engaged in egregious, unethical and fraudulent conduct, which caused harm to the company and its shareholders," according to media reports in 2023.

Government documents on the existence, targets or purpose of any investigations are not currently available, and parts of the suit are redacted. But an attorney letter sent Jan. 12 to Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, seeking expedited handling of the advancement suit, said Raz continues "to incur attorneys' fees and costs by reason of her position as former chief executive officer of the company in connection with ongoing and active government investigations and proceedings."

An Aug. 31 email from Ilon Band, Joonko's chief operating officer, to Raz's counsel with Norton Rose Fulbright said, "Given the circumstances, we do not believe that under the terms of the indemnification agreement the company is obligated to pay the invoices you forwarded.  Attached for your reference is the company's D&O Insurance (recently expired)."  The email was addressed to Kevin J. Harnisch, head of Norton Rose white-collar practice and co-head of its regulation, investigations, securities and compliance practice.

"You explained that the company is (refusing to pay) because of Ms. Raz's alleged misconduct despite the fact that you are unaware of any precedent supporting the company's position," Harnisch wrote in reply Oct. 20.  "The company's posture leaves us little choice but to file suit to vindicate Ms. Raz's right to advancement."

Joonko, with offices in New York and Tel Aviv, markets itself as the developer of a "transparent diversity recruiting layer" used on top of cloud-based human resources and recruiting software.  The company's website said its system and services enabled recruiters "to passively source top diversity candidates who've been qualified by a two-steps validation process to make sure you receive the best fits for the roles you are looking for."

The company incorporated in Delaware in July 2016 and completed a $17 million equity offering in early 2022, according to SEC records.  A $25 million series B issue was reported the same year, led by Insight Partners.  Target Global, Kapor Capital and Vertex Ventures Israel also were described as supporting.

In the Jan. 12 letter to Chancellor McCormick, M. Paige Valeski of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP wrote, "As a result of the company's unjustified delay" on the advancement demand, "Ms. Raz faces imminent, irreparable, and non-monetary injury. In her motion to expedite, Ms. Raz is seeking a final hearing on the merits in February 2024, subject to the court's availability."

Fourth Circuit Denies Coverage of Defense Fees in Fraud Case

January 4, 2024

A recent Law 360 story by Emily Enfinger, “Md. Atty Not Owed Defense Coverage, 4th Circ. Finds”, reports that a Maryland attorney is not entitled to defense costs under his law firm's insurance policy after he was indicted on allegations that he fraudulently seized control of $13 million in Somalian government funds, the Fourth Circuit has ruled, affirming in full a district court's summary judgment.

In a published opinion, the panel agreed that Axis Surplus Insurance Co., Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co. and Prosight Syndicate 1110 at Lloyds do not owe coverage to Jeremy Schulman in connection with the underlying fraud and money laundering charges.  Schulman, who is based in Bethesda, Maryland, has asserted that a part of the policy saying it covers "demands" should give him coverage after prosecutors said they were coming for his property.

But the indictment does not fall within several definitions of the word "demand," the panel said, noting that the forfeiture allegation in the indictment did not require the attorney to turn over any money or property to the government.  Instead, at most, the forfeiture allegation is "a notice that there will be a demand in the future," the panel said.  "The ordinary meaning of 'demand' does not encompass a notice that, on the condition a triggering event occurs, something will be demanded in the future," the panel continued.

Schulman has also argued that a letter the insurers sent him in June 2017 was a binding contract in which the insurers promised to cover fees and costs related to the indictment, and that he relied on that promise "to his detriment," the panel's opinion read.  The panel was unconvinced that the letter triggered coverage, saying that "the insurers never made a clear and definite promise to cover the expenses over which Schulman has sued."  Rather, the letter limits coverage for a subpoena, the panel said, not the indictment.

Federal prosecutors said Schulman assisted the Somali government in unfreezing nearly $13 million in assets through fraud and money laundering, taking $3.3 million for his law firm and hundreds of thousands of dollars for himself in the process.  Schulman is accused of forging documents and lying to banks about his authority to obtain the Somali government's money.

Prosecutors charged Schulman in December 2020 with 11 criminal counts, including conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering, wire and bank fraud, and money laundering.  After being indicted, Schulman said he racked up about $2 million in criminal defense costs.

Article: Understanding Attorney Fee-Shifting to Mitigate Risk

December 5, 2023

A recent Business Insurance article by Iran Valentin and Allison Scott, “Perspectives: Understanding Attorney Fee Shifting to Mitigate Exposures”, reports on the importance of understanding attorney fee-shifting in litigation to mitigate risk.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

The availability of attorneys fees is a significant concern to policyholders.  Without the potential to recover the fees, most dubious claims and suits related to employment law and consumer protection, for example, would not be pursued.  The potential of a fee recovery also drives up the cost of resultant litigation, settlements and awards.  Thus, a double-headed monster emerges: an increase in the number of claims and an increase in exposure, which can eventually drive up the costs of insurance.

An existential threat that exists for corporations is a “nuclear verdict,” or a runaway jury award.  These huge verdicts grew in the face of incessant legal advertising by plaintiffs attorneys and the resultant slanted narrative effectively desensitized potential jurors to the value of money and preemptively taints prospective jury pools.

Within this context, it is more important than ever for insurance professionals and defense counsel to understand the significance of attorney-fee shifting.  When crafting a defense strategy, many factors are considered, including the nature of the alleged loss, the profiles of the litigants, the reputation of the claimants’ counsel, recent jury verdicts and the jurisdiction.  Equally as important should be considering the effect of fee-shifting, to develop strategies to mitigate that exposure.

Remedial legislation

Basically, fee-shifting requires a losing party in litigation to pay a prevailing party’s attorneys fees.  It represents a departure from the “American Rule,” which generally provides that each party to a litigation will bear their own fees.  However, fee-shifting statutes have continued to grow, especially in the areas of employment and consumer protection, or so-called remedial legislation.

One of the purposes of remedial legislation is to introduce policies intended to benefit the public good, including anti-discrimination, anti-retaliation and consumer protection.  The policies enable fee-shifting provisions so alleged victims have access to competent legal representation.  It is not always the alleged victims who seek vindication, but rather lawyers who make a market in an area where attorneys fees are available.

Fee-shifting is sometimes a misnomer, as the availability of fees under enabling law is often limited to a prevailing plaintiff, as opposed to a prevailing defendant.  Under those laws, legislators seek to avoid the creation of a “chilling effect,” in dissuading potential plaintiffs and their lawyers from pursuing a claim.

Some laws allow for more traditional fee-shifting, by allowing prevailing defendants to recover defense fees for claims that lack merit or are brought in bad faith.  While a prevailing party may be awarded fees under a fee-shifting law, there is often attendant litigation over who constitutes a “prevailing party.”  Generally, a prevailing party is one who achieves a substantial proportion of the relief sought, whether or not that party actually obtains a verdict.  Courts have held that parties may not only prevail by judgment but also by compromise or settlement. 

In at least one jurisdiction, fee-shifting has also been made available in the professional liability context.  In New Jersey, the precedential 1996 case of Saffer v. Willoughby allowed a successful plaintiff to recover attorneys fees in prosecuting a legal malpractice action.  The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a negligent attorney is responsible for resulting legal fees and costs.  Interestingly, those fees were not considered fee-shifting, but “consequential damages” flowing from the attorney’s negligence.  New Jersey courts also allow recovery of fees by a third-party if the attorney intentionally breaches a recognized duty owed to a non-client, such as when serving as a fiduciary. 

The “common fund” and “substantial benefit” doctrines are also court-created fee-shifting mechanisms.  The common fund doctrine applies where litigation has created or preserved a common fund for the benefit of a group of people — such as a class action — and, accordingly, an attorney may be awarded attorneys fees out of that fund.  The substantial benefit doctrine applies if a judgment confers a substantial benefit on a defendant, such as in a corporate derivative action, which could lead to the payment by the defendant of the attorneys fees incurred by the plaintiff. 

Outside of the statutory and court-created fee-shifting framework, parties to a contract may agree to fee-shifting provisions.  Commercial contracts quite commonly contain default provisions that call for the payment of attorneys fees to a prevailing party in a dispute to enforce the terms of the agreement.

In most jurisdictions, attorneys fees that are awarded pursuant to a fee-shifting statute are calculated by setting a “lodestar,” which is the number of hours reasonably expended by an attorney multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate in the jurisdiction. Courts have the flexibility to adjust the lodestar considering certain factors, such as the results obtained by the attorney; the time and labor required to obtain that result; the attorney’s skill; the attorney’s customary fee; the amount of money involved in the claim; and awards in similar cases.

If the prevailing party has only achieved partial or limited success, the requested lodestar may be considered excessive and reduced.  Moreover, the attorney’s presentation of time billed must be set forth with sufficient detail, based on appropriate rates and in compliance with the jurisdiction’s ethical requirements.

Determining exposure

When a claim arises, insurance professionals and defense counsel should determine whether the policyholder is exposed to any court rule, statute, regulation or case law that allows fee-shifting or an award of attorneys fees.  They should also conduct an early assessment of liability and damages and consider early avenues to resolution to mitigate the exposure to fee-shifting.  Depending on the jurisdiction, defense counsel may be able to craft strategies designed to cabin the availability of attorneys fees, helping to drive resolution.  These are good faith strategies and methods employed during a case to drive resolution and also mitigate the exposure to attorneys fees. 

Often, a reasonable settlement curbing increased fees and costs is the second-best result outside of obtaining an early dismissal.  However, it is important to take care during settlement negotiations and the drafting of settlement agreements, releases and stipulations resolving litigation to account for attorneys fees and costs.  Lack of attention or poor drafting could result in unintended consequences, including the imposition of a fee award. 

When an adverse judgment calls for the imposition of an award of attorneys fees, strategies can still be employed to curb a disproportionately excessive fee claim, by relying on mitigation strategies employed at the outset designed to limit the recovery of fees; exposing the limited success of a claimant; exposing an adversary’s wastefulness during the dispute; questioning the proofs submitted in support of the fee claim; and otherwise contesting the reasonableness of the fee claim.

Iram Valentin is co-chair of the professional liability practice group in the Hackensack, New Jersey, office of Kaufman Dolowich LLP.   Allison Scott is an associate at the firm.

SBF Sues Insurer Over Coverage of Defense Fees and Costs

October 4, 2023

A recent Law.com story by Jane Wester, “Sam Bankman-Fried Sues Insurer to Cover Defense Costs in New York Criminal Trial, Other Litigation”, reports that indicted FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried sued an insurance firm for assistance with his defense costs, one day before jury selection began in his fraud trial in Manhattan.  Bankman-Fried’s attorneys at Lewis & Llewellyn and Cohen & Gresser argued that the Continental Casualty Co., also known as CNA, has breached its contractual obligation to pay Bankman-Fried’s defense costs “on a current basis, without regard to whether payments may exhaust the policy limit.”

According to the complaint, Bankman-Fried’s companies held a CNA policy as a second-layer excess policy offering “a $5 million limit of liability, which attaches upon exhaustion of the $10 million in aggregate limits of the underlying insurance.”  The primary insurance policies and the first-layer excess policies have both been exhausted, according to the complaint, so Bankman-Fried is seeking reimbursement from CNA through the court after “numerous” requests for payment were unsuccessful.

The suit comes less than a year after FTX collapsed and filed for bankruptcy in November.  Bankman-Fried was arrested in the Bahamas in December at the request of U.S. officials and agreed to come to the United States to face charges; he spent approximately eight months on house arrest at his parents’ home in California before he was remanded to Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center for allegedly attempting to tamper with witnesses.

While Bankman-Fried’s current criminal trial is expected to last approximately six weeks, the insurance suit noted that that case is not the full extent of his legal troubles.  He is set to face another criminal trial for a group of severed charges in 2024 and is “further involved in more than a dozen civil and regulatory actions relating to FTX,” his attorneys noted.

His attorneys argued that CNA’s alleged breaches of the policy “have caused, and threaten to cause, substantial and irreparable harm” to Bankman-Fried, including the impairment of his defense.  They argued that Bankman-Fried has already incurred more than $75,000 in monetary damages for his efforts to obtain CNA coverage and out-of-pocket defense costs.  The suit seeks unspecified damages for CNA’s alleged breach of contract and alleged bad faith conduct, along with a declaration that CNA has a duty to pay Bankman-Fried’s defense costs “on an ongoing basis.”