HNRK Coverage Corner
On December 11, 2018, Judge Failla of the SDNY issued a decision in Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hamilton Ins. Co., 17-CV-2350 (KFP), holding that an insured had the right to select defense counsel because of the insurer’s conflict of interest.
Liberty v. Hamilton arose from an injury at a construction site. The injured worker sued the construction manager (Gilbane) and the property owner (DASNY). DASNY filed a cross-claim against Gilbane and a third-party action against the contractor (Preferred), and Gilbane filed its own claims against Preferred. Gilbane was an additional insured under Preferred’s liability policy and tendered the defense of the claims against it to Preferred’s insurer (Hamilton). Hamilton initially disclaimed coverage, but two years later agreed to assume the defense, subject to a reservation of rights. Among other things, Hamilton sought to replace Gilbane’s counsel with counsel selected by Hamilton, and took the position that Gilbane’s additional insured status “applies only to the extent the liability of the additional insured arises out of Preferred Builders’ work.” Gilbane refused to accept defense counsel selected by Hamilton, citing a conflict of interest: Hamilton had an economic incentive to establish that the construction worker’s injuries were caused by Gilbane’s negligence, as this would absolve its principal insured (Preferred) of liability, and would also eliminate additional insured coverage for Gilbane under Preferred’s policy. In addition, Gilbane and Preferred were actually adverse to one another in the underlying litigation, where Gilbane asserted claims against Preferred.
In subsequent coverage litigation between Gilbane’s liability carrier (Liberty Mutual) and Hamilton, Judge Failla held that there was a conflict of interest that entitled Gilbane to select defense counsel of its own choosing to be paid for Hamilton. The Court explained:
In Public Service Mutual Insurance Co. v. Goldfarb, the Court of Appeals held that, if a conflict exists because “the insurer [is] liable only upon some of the grounds for recovery asserted and not upon others — defendant … is entitled to defense by an attorney of his choosing, whose reasonable fee is to be paid by the insurer.” 53 N.Y.2d 392, 401 (1981). Liberty Mutual argues from this decision that Hamilton had no right to choose Gilbane’s counsel because of a conflict of interest whereby Hamilton “would be liable only on some of the grounds for which recovery was sought in the Underlying Action,” i.e., “only to the extent the liability … arises out of Preferred Builders’ work.”It posits that this limitation on Hamilton’s liability created a conflict: Hamilton “would not only be less interested in defending liability arising from Gilbane’s work; it would want to show that liability arose solely from Gilbane’s work — increasing Gilbane’s exposure and eliminating Hamilton’s exposure both as insurer of Gilbane and as insurer of Preferred.”In addition, Liberty Mutual notes that “Gilbane had cross-claims against and from DASNY, Hamilton’s additional insured, and a third-party action for indemnification against Preferred, Hamilton’s Named Insured.”
Hamilton contends that the issue of conflict “is irrelevant” because, by the time it finally undertook Gilbane’s defense, there was no more conflict. Specifically, by October 11, 2013, there was no longer any dispute “that Preferred Builders was … solely responsible for Siguencia’s injury”; that Preferred had no plausible claim against Gilbane; and that Gilbane’s sole liability flowed from the negligence of its sub-contractor, Preferred. Hamilton also asserts that Liberty Mutual was aware of the absence of conflict no later than January 28, 2011, and thus had no basis to refuse Hamilton’s October 11, 2013 acceptance of the tender of defense. In any event, Hamilton claims, even before the determination of Preferred’s sole liability, Hamilton could have obviated the issue by appointing different counsel for Gilbane, which counsel would have been ethically bound to defend Gilbane against all claims independent of Hamilton’s coverage position.
The Court agrees with Liberty Mutual. Even if the Court could plausibly determine that the conflict posed by the limitations on Hamilton’s liability had evaporated by 2013, Gilbane’s cross-claim and third-party action persisted. “A further justification for representation by attorneys selected by the insureds exists in the instant case by reason of the claims and cross claims of the respondents.… The cross claims indicate true adversity and conflict of interest[.]” Rimar v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 376 N.Y.S.2d 309, 313 (4th Dep’t 1975). Here, the specter of conflict from the cross-claims and third-party action loomed larger due to Hamilton’s repeated, and unsuccessful, attempts to persuade Gilbane to drop those claims. Under these circumstances, the apparent conflict of interest between Hamilton and Gilbane entitled Gilbane to counsel of its own choosing. Thus, Gilbane’s refusal to accept Hamilton’s offer of defense under the condition of a change of counsel did not absolve Hamilton of its duty to defend.
Some liability policies (particularly those under which the carrier has a “duty to defend”) give the insurer the right to select defense counsel. However, as this decision illustrates, a conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured gives the insured the right to select counsel regardless of what the policy has to say on the issue.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Is Carbon a “Pollutant”? — The Supreme Courts of Alaska and Hawaii Receive Certified Questions Regarding Scope of Pollution Exclusions in Liability Policies
- Court Rules That D&O Policy’s “Bump-Up” Exclusion Does Not Apply to Merger Transaction
- Eleventh Circuit Rules Insurer Cannot Recoup Defense Costs Under Duty to Defend Policy
- Federal Court Declines to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Insurer’s Declaratory Judgment Action That Raised “Novel Issue of Ohio Insurance Law”
- Bankruptcy Court Lifts Automatic Stay to Permit Officers of Silicon Valley Bank to Access D&O Coverage
- E&O Policy Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Claim Against Law Firm Arising from Third Party’s Misappropriation of Client’s Funds
- New Jersey Appellate Court Holds That Policy’s War Exclusion Did Not Apply to State-Sponsored Cyberattack
- New York Court Discusses Appellate Division Split Over Recoupment of Defense Costs Under a Duty to Defend Policy
- Delaware Law Governs D&O Policy Issued to Delaware Corporation Doing Business Outside the State
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
Popular Categories
- Occurrence/Accident
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- D&O Policies
- Pollution Exclusion
- Policy Exclusions
- CGL Policies
- E&O Policies
- Cyber Coverage
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Excess Insurance
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Intervention/Joinder
- Rescission
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018