Photo of Lisa Szymanski

Lisa Szymanski

Subscribe to Lisa Szymanski's Posts
Contact:Read more about Lisa Szymanski

In addition to insurance companies’ broad duty to defend all claims arising from complaints seeking damages potentially covered by their policies, Pennsylvania law provides an opportunity for policyholders to have their insurance companies pay for litigation costs associated with claims and/or suits that overlap or are intertwined with a suit the insurance company is already defending.  

The magic words are “inextricably intertwined”

Policyholders may seek defense costs for related litigation if those claims are made as: (1) counterclaims in suits the insurance company is already defending, or (2) separate, independent lawsuits with facts or defense work that overlap with a suit the insurance company is defending. The insurance company’s duty to defend such related claims is not automatic, however. Pennsylvania courts make it clear that in both instances, the cases or claims must be “inextricably intertwined” in order to trigger the insurance company’s obligation to pay litigation costs.Continue Reading Insurers must foot the bill for “inextricably intertwined” counterclaims in Pennsylvania 

The well-established principle that a policyholder may assign benefits under an insurance policy following a loss was recently reaffirmed by state supreme courts in two jurisdictions:  South Carolina and Puerto Rico. These two jurisdictions join the majority rule, which holds that assignments following an insured loss are permissible because they do not change the scope of the insured risk.  The majority rule makes commercial sense, as it ensures the free alienability of property, while at the same time maintaining the benefit of the bargain that was struck when the insurance company underwrote the policy. 

San Luis Center Apartments v. Triple-S Propiedad, Inc., 2022 WL 611245 (P.R. Feb. 15, 2022)

In a February 2022 decision, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, addressing an issue of first impression, ruled that an insured property owner’s assignment of both the prosecution of its claim and a portion of claim proceeds to an investment company was proper, notwithstanding a non-assignment clause in the policy, because the assignment was made after the policyholder’s property sustained damage during Hurricane Maria.  The court rejected the insurance company’s argument that the suit against it could not proceed because the policyholder, in making the assignment, had purportedly breached the insurance policy’s non-assignment clause, which provided that “[y]our rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without our written consent.”  In reaching its holding, the court reasoned that because the assignment was made after the property damage occurred, the change in the claimant’s identity did not alter the risk that had been underwritten, the scope of the policy’s coverage or the amount the insurance company would be obligated to pay. Therefore, the policyholder did not breach the contract by making the assignment. Continue Reading Two state Supreme Courts reach commercially reasonable results by permitting post-loss assignments