23 01, 2023

Insurer Does Not Have to Indemnify Broker in Professional Negligence Case

By |2023-01-05T11:52:03-06:00January 23, 2023|@PLUS, General Risk Management, PL Insurance|1 Comment

Assessing appropriate policy limits is a daunting task for any insurance broker. Errors in judgment can result in significant losses for the client as well as insurers. Businesses have an interest in maintaining affordable coverage, but also need to ensure that they are adequately covered by insurance should the worst scenario occur. Businesses look to insurance brokers to help them properly assess their risk and determine the amount of coverage required to minimize that risk. When a broker provides inaccurate advice and their clients find themselves in the pickle of having lacking insurance coverage, the broker may be on the hook [...]

12 01, 2023

Discovery Rule Still Rules in Legal Malpractice Actions

By |2023-01-03T09:15:57-06:00January 12, 2023|@PLUS, General Risk Management, PL Insurance|0 Comments

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reiterated the long-prevailing discovery rule applicable to legal malpractice actions in Pennsylvania. In Nupson v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP, Bruce A. Rosenfield and Blank Rome LLP, 2022 WL 4635943 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 30, 2022), Judge Alejandro dismissed the plaintiff’s untimely 2018 claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against her former counsel based upon conduct which had occurred 15 years prior, in 2001 through 2003. Pennsylvania follows the “occurrence rule” with respect to the tolling of the statute of limitations in legal malpractice actions – [...]

5 01, 2023

Privette Doctrine: Not An Absolute Shield

By |2022-12-15T10:18:31-06:00January 5, 2023|@PLUS, A&E, E&O, General Risk Management, Misc. Lines|0 Comments

The "Privette Doctrine" is a well-accepted rule that has governed the liability of general contractors and property owners for workplace injuries suffered by a subcontractor's employee.  In Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, the California Supreme Court held that “Generally, when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, they cannot sue the party that hired the contractor to do the work.”  The rationale for this limitation was that the subcontractor's employee will usually be covered under the subcontractor's workers compensation policy. The courts have created various exceptions to this rule, including exceptions based on claims involving [...]

Go to Top