(216) 609-3940
SandRun Risk
  • Home
  • What We Do
    • Risk Management
    • Insurance Claims
    • Insurance Archaeology
  • Blog
  • About
    • Team
    • Our Company
    • Articles
  • Contact

Can an Insurer Force Its Policyholder to Use an Attorney Chosen by the Insurer?  By Amanda Leffler, Brouse McDowell

6/23/2016

0 Comments

 
We are happy to welcome another guest blogger, Amanda Leffler, a partner at Brouse McDowell, who represents policyholders in insurance coverage matters. We hope that you enjoy her blog.

***************************************************************************************************
           When named as a defendant in a lawsuit, you naturally want to be represented by an attorney that you trust, that understands the nuances of your business, and that will protect your company’s interest to the exclusion of all others.  But when the defense to a lawsuit is being paid for by an insurance company, that insurance company frequently attempts to impose its designated counsel upon the policyholder.   Many policyholders simply accept the counsel appointed by the insurer, and don’t understand that, in certain cases, it is the policyholder, not the insurer, that has the right to select counsel.  Though insurers frequently dispute the point, when an insurer reserves its rights or when the interests of the policyholder and the insurer otherwise conflict, the control of the defense and the right to select defense counsel rest with the policyholder. 
 
Conflicts of Interest Are Common
 
            Consider a fairly simple situation:  Your company is sued by a patron that was injured when she slipped and fell at your place of business.  In her complaint, the patron alleges that the company’s conduct was intentional or, alternatively, that the conduct was at least negligent, resulting in her injury.  If the jury in that case ultimately determines that the company acted intentionally, the insurer would not be required to pay the verdict because most policies exclude coverage for intentional acts.  If the jury ultimately determined that the policyholder was negligent, however, the insurer would have to pay the claim.  The insurer agrees to defend the claim, but reserves its right to later deny coverage if the policyholder’s conduct was intentional.
 
            In the foregoing example, the interests of the policyholder and the insurer conflict.  The policyholder, of course, would be best served if the jury returned a negligence verdict that would be indemnified by the insurer.  The insurer, however, would be able to avoid coverage if the jury found that the policyholder acted intentionally.  This inherent conflict between the insurer and the policyholder means that the policyholder gets to select its own counsel to defend it in the lawsuit.
 
An Insurer’s Refusal to Acknowledge the Policyholder’s Rights
 
            Some insurers are reluctant to acknowledge a policyholder’s right to select counsel when the insurer has reserved rights or when the interests of the policyholder and insurer otherwise conflict.  Many insurers will prefer to select counsel, in part because they have negotiated low hourly rates with certain “panel” counsel. 
 
            If an insurer remains insistent that it has such a right, in spite of the Ohio law to the contrary, the policyholder has a decision to make.  If the policyholder is satisfied both that the insurer-selected counsel is competent to handle the matter and that such counsel understands he or she represents only the policyholder, then the policyholder may be comfortable acceding to the insurer’s choice of counsel.  But if the policyholder is not satisfied on these points, or if other circumstances compel the policyholder to use defense counsel of its choice, the policyholder typically will be better served to decline the insurer’s choice, retain its own counsel, and sue the insurer for breach of contract and, if the circumstances are egregious enough, for bad faith. 
 
The Takeaway
 
            If there a potential conflict between you and the insurer, or another reason why you do not want to accept the insurer’s selection of counsel, consider the following: 
  • Is the insurer-appointed counsel competent in the field? 
  • Has the insurer-appointed counsel explicitly agreed that he or she represents solely the policyholder, and does not also represent the insurer, as required by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct? 
  • Will the insurer-appointed counsel expressly agree that he or she will protect all interests of the policyholder, including interests in regard to any insurance coverage issues or disputes? 
  • Has the insurer-appointed counsel agreed that he or she is prohibited from sharing any attorney-client or work product protected materials in the file?
 
Determining the answers to these questions will better equip you to decide whether you will accept, or decline, the insurer’s selection of counsel.
 
 

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Authors

    Lori Siwik and Mark Siwik are the founders of SandRun Risk.  They apply the principles of vertical leadership and lean six sigma to the discipline of risk management.  From time to time they share their blog with guest authors who write about important risk management principles.

    Categories

    All
    Insurance Claims
    Mergers And Acquisitions
    Risk Management

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    May 2022
    December 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    Insurance Claims
    Mergers And Acquisitions
    Risk Management

    RSS Feed

What We Do.

Risk Management
Insurance Claims
Insurance Archaeology

Blog.

About.

Team
Our Company
Articles

Contact.

Legal.

Privacy
Terms of Use
 
Copyright ©2014 | 4199 Kinross Lakes Parkway, Ste. 275 Richfield, Ohio 44286 | 216-609-3940 | [email protected]