- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
November 11, 2024Tommy Du Honored With 2024 Sheila Sonenshine Associate Pro Bono Award
-
November 7, 2024Robins Kaplan Achieves National Tier 1 Rankings in Multiple Practice Areas on 2025 Best Law Firms List
-
November 1, 2024Robins Kaplan Recognized for “Tipping the Scales” by Diversity & Flexibility Alliance
-
November 14, 2024Roots, Branches, and Wings: Risks and Rewards of Generational Wealth
-
November 18, 2024Careers in Litigation
-
December 11, 20242024 Year in Review: eDiscovery and Artificial Intelligence
-
November 8, 2024Destination Skiing And The DOJ's Mountain Merger Challenge
-
November 6, 2024How Recent Patent Damages Precedent May Increase Reasonable Royalty Awards
-
September 2024Meet Our New Partner and Trial Advocacy Seminar Keynote Speaker: B. Todd Jones
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
A Magnifying Glass on the Notice Prejudice Standard in Massachusetts for Excess Insurers
By Taylore Karpa Schollard
June 2024
What happens between a primary and excess liability insurer when their mutual insured is hit with a verdict $2.15 million over the primary limit and the excess insurer was not put on notice until after the verdict? This was the issue recently tried by the carriers in Acadia Insurance Company v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, in the Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts.1
Both Acadia and Scottsdale provided liability insurance to Transpro, LLC, a transportation company located in Massachusetts. Transpro was insured under a $1 million primary liability policy issued by Acadia and a $2 million excess policy issued by Scottsdale. The underlying case arose from an incident in which a toddler was left alone in a student transport van operated by Transpro for multiple hours in the month of August.2 The child’s mother brought suit alleging that he suffered post-traumatic stress as a result of the incident and that she suffered loss of consortium.
The sole dispute in the underlying case was over damages, as Transpro stipulated to liability. The defendant, Transpro, contended that the child sustained no physical injuries as a result of the incident and challenged the medical evidence submitted in support of the PTSD diagnosis. Prior to trial, Acadia assessed the full settlement value of the case at $125,000. Scottsdale contends that Acadia undervalued the claim.3 On the eve of trial, the plaintiff made a settlement demand of $170,000. Acadia countered with $115,000 which was rejected. The matter did not resolve and instead proceeded to trial, during which counsel for Transpro declined to call its rebuttal medical expert witness. The jury returned a verdict of $3.15 million in favor of the plaintiff.
Scottsdale received its first notice of the claim three days after the verdict was entered.
The underlying case went to a post-verdict mediation where the case ultimately settled for $2.2 million. Acadia paid $2 million toward the settlement, comprising its $1 million policy limit and another $1 million. Scottsdale contributed $200,000.
Acadia filed the subject insurer action against Scottsdale to recoup the $1 million it paid in excess of its primary limit. Acadia argued that Scottsdale breached its excess policy by failing to pay its limits.4 In defense, Scottsdale argued that because it was prejudiced by the insured’s late notice of the claim, it had no obligation to tender its limits or extend coverage to satisfy the judgment or settlement.
At trial, “the jury found that Transpro had provided late notice of the claim to Scottsdale, but [that] Scottsdale failed to prove it was prejudiced by the late notice.” The jury, therefore, determined that Scottsdale breached its policy by not contributing its full excess limit of $1 million and awarded Acadia the requested $1 million.
The matter was ultimately resolved via a settlement post-verdict.
1 Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff, Carriers sue each other over obligations to mutual insured, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 2024 WLNR 6536122 (May 10, 2024); Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum, Acadia Insurance Company v. Scottsdale, No. 17-0209-B (Mar. 29, 2024) (Doc. 53).
2 Order on Scottsdale Insurance Company’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Directed Verdict and Cross-Motion for Directed Verdict, Acadia Insurance Company v. Scottsdale, No. 17-0209-B (Apr. 16, 2024) (Doc. 58).
3 Scottsdale counterclaimed against Acadia for the $200,000 it paid in settlement on a theory of equitable subrogation. Scottsdale argued that Acadia acted negligently in failing to settle the underlying case prior to trial for within the policy limit.
Related Professionals
Taylore Karpa Schollard
Associate
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.