Claims And Issues

EXAMINATION UNDER OATH IN FLORIDA.

          A condominium association-policyholder produced a person to testify on its behalf at its examination under oath (EUO).  The association had a pending claim for property damage from Hurricane Wilma under its commercial property insurance policy with QBE.  In addition, the condominium association filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN), a condition precedent to pursuing a statutory bad faith action under Florida law.

          The policy required, in a standard provision in such insurance policies, among other things that the policyholder submit to examination under oath (EUO).

          However, although the person provided by the association was "its treasurer," the person "knew very little about the claim and did nothing to prepare for the EUO."[1]

          QBE, the commercial property insurer, "provided evidence that [the association's representative who testified at the EUO] did not fully participate in the EUO....  Plaintiff has not rebutted such evidence.  Thus, Plaintiff has not met its burden for summary judgment, and accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied on this issue."[2]

          This is an issue certain to arise again at Trial, should this case proceed that far.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  

---

[1] Cypress Chase Condo. Ass'n "A" v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 1191413 *6 (S.D. Fla. March 22, 2013).

 

[2] Cypress Chase Condo. Ass'n "A" v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 1191413 *6 (S.D. Fla. March 22, 2013).

 

When Travel Insurance Doesn't Travel So Well.

     Travel Insurance may not be everything it's marketed to be.  After Premium payments come Claims sometimes.  People pay the Premiums or they do not have the Insurance.  For their part, sometimes the Travel Insurance Companies seem single-minded in their pursuit of reasons to deny paying the Claims when they come.  These issues are illustrated in an anecdotal piece by an experienced columnist who certainly seems to present all the facts accurately in this piece:  David Lazarus, "A Roadblock to Collecting Travel Insurance Benefits" (Los Angeles Times Online, posted Tuesday, April 23, 2013).

Please Read The Disclaimer.

RELEASES DON'T ALWAYS RELEASE Continued.

The effects of Releases are explored in an article published on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on April 9, 2013, "MISCONDUCT INDUCING FHA INSURED MORTGAGES LITIGATION ALLOWED DESPITE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT".

          The District Court in the case of National Heritage Foundation, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., 2012 WL 5331570 *1 (E.D. Va. October 25, 2012), concisely described the question presented in that case and the Court's resolution of it, as follows:

   In this diversity insurance dispute, plaintiff insured makes certain claims for coverage and indemnification under policies issued by defendant insurer, while defendant insurer contends, at this stage, that the claims are barred by a release plaintiff signed in settlement of an earlier lawsuit between the parties. At issue therefore, on cross motions for summary judgment, is the scope of the release. For the reasons that follow, the release, properly construed, bars some, but not all of plaintiff's claims, and thus the parties' summary judgment motions must each be granted in part and denied in part.

       In that decision, a previous Settlement Agreement with a Release barred the Policyholder's recovery from its Directors' and Officers' Insurer of the Policyholder's claimed defense costs incurred in certain prior claims, but did not bar recover of settlement amounts paid by the Policyholder.   National Heritage Foundation, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., 2012 WL 5331570 *5-*7 (E.D. Va. October 25, 2012).

       The moral of drafting Releases:  Be careful what you Release, or you may not get it.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

GOOD FAITH IN SETTLEMENT AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY.

    

          A Liability Insurer was sued in New York for allegedly failing to settle underlying claims within the Liability Policy Limits.  The basis of the Bad Faith Claim was apparently that by not settling, the Defendant caused the entry of Judgment in excess of Policy Limits -- principally an assessment of Punitive Damages against the Insured, it would appear.

          In a very short opinion on appeal, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court reversed a Trial Court Order denying the Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Appellate Division directed the Clerk to enter Judgment dismissing the Complaint.  "[D]efendant is entitled to summary judgment based on public policy precluding an insured from recovering the punitive damages portion of any judgment which may have resulted from the insurer's bad faith failure to settle".  Seldon v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2013 WL 978689 *1 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep't, March 14, 2013).

          In effect, the Defendant Liability Carrier in that case acted fairly and in Good Faith in Settlement as a matter of public policy.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

PART PAYMENT OF PROPERTY INSURANCE CLAIMS STILL REQUIRES POL, EUO.

          Courts have looked carefully at whether Insurance Companies involved in First-Party Bad Faith Cases addressed the clearly covered parts of Coverage Claims, particularly those involving Property Insurance Claims.

          In order to invite this level of attention from Insurance Companies and Courts alike, however, there is more involved than making a Claim and saying to the Property Carrier that part of it is covered, you go figure out what part and pay it.

          Proofs of Loss in such cases must still be as accurate as they would otherwise be required to be under the local law, or Coverage will be forfeit by a Court holding that the Policyholder failed to comply with this condition precedent to recovery under the Policy.  See, e.g., Garden-Aire Village South Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 864570 *4 Point 47 (S.D. Fla. March 8, 2013)(Policyholder Condominium Association presenting Hurricane Wilma Claim "did not comply with the Proof of Loss requirements because it submitted items for insurance coverage that were not in fact damaged by Hurricane Wilma.  First, it asked for replacement of every single window, not just those damaged by the storm.  When pressed to clarify whether it was submitting claims for undamaged windows, [the Condominium Association's attorney] refused, suggesting that insurance coverage had been demanded at least in part for windows that had not been damaged by Hurricane Wilma....  Second, Plaintiff claimed damages that its own contractor ... had said were not Wilma-related.  Both overstatements violated Plaintiff's post-loss obligation regarding the proof of loss.").

          In addition, the Policy's requirements concerning Examinations Under Oath remain in effect in such cases, of course, and if a Court determines that the EUO provisions have not been complied with in a given case, the Policyholder runs the risk once again of forfeiting all Coverage where compliance with a Policy's EUO provision is a condition precedent to Coverage, as was the case in Garden-Aire Village South Condominium Ass'n v. QBE Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 864570 *5 Point 71, *6 Points 72-75 (S.D. Fla. March 8, 2013).

          In short, it is generally true that in most jurisdictions Property Insurance Carriers and other First-Party Insurance Companies have a legally enforceable obligation to pay clearly covered parts of claims made upon the Policies they issue.  However, in order to trigger payment in such circumstances there is more involved than simply making a Claim and saying to the Property Carrier that part of the Claim is covered, you go figure out what part and pay it.  When conditions precedent to recovery under the Policy are met, including where Proofs of Loss and Examinations Under Oath are conditions precedent and are met in the given case, the Policyholder's Claim to Coverage may not necessarily be a guaranteed success depending on other facts and the applicable law, but in such cases the First-Party Policyholder's Coverage Claim can continue to  move forward beyond these stopping points.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY'S FEES CLAIMS CONTINUE IN OREGON CASE.

          In a case with a long litigation history including appeals to the Supreme Court of Oregon and to the Supreme Court of the United States over Punitive Damages, the Plaintiff in the class action case over Insurance payments recently petitioned for:

1. Attorney's fees and costs "incurred for the appellate work done on review before this court [the Supreme Court of Oregon]";
2. A "supplemental fee award" for "the cost of litigating the fee petition";
3. A second "supplemental fee award" for "the cost of defending against a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court after this court [again, the Supreme Court of Oregon] issued its decision"; and
4. "[A] $5,000 incentive fee for his service on review as class representative."

Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co., 353 Or. 210, 2013 WL 655063 *1 (February 22, 2013).

     The Oregon Supreme Court granted most of the relief requested, but not all of it:

1. "$72,724.75 in attorney fees and expenses not part of [previously awarded] attorney fees ($70,299.90 and $2,424.85 respectively";
2. "[A]nother $297,850.74 in attorney fees and expenses not part of [previously awarded] attorney fees ($291,012.10 and $6,838.64 respectively on all three fee petitions)"; and
3. "[A] $5,000 class incentive fee to be paid from the punitive damages award in this case."
4. However, the Court denied Mr. Strawn's, the Plaintiff's-Appellant's-Policyholder's, request for class administration fees "without prejudice to Strawn seeking an award of those fees by appropriate application to the trial court."

Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co., 353 Or. 210, 2013 WL 655063 *19 (February 22, 2013).

     Sometimes a party decides that it just has to litigate even if litigation is expensive.  Of course, that decision ought to take the consequences of failure into the evaluation, just in case.  Even then, a party may decide that the percentage chances in litigation still make litigation worthwhile in that particular case.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

U.S. ATTORNEY PURSUES POLICY OF RECOVERING FHA MORTGAGE INSURANCE LOSSES.

 

This post updates the article published on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on Sunday, April 7, 2013, "FIRREA is Not a Furry Creature for D&O Insurer DJA".  See also the post on Insurance Claims Bad Faith Law Blog published on Tuesday, April 9, 2013, "MISCONDUCT INDUCING FHA INSURED MORTGAGES: LITIGATION ALLOWED DESPITE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ".

 

          The Department of Justice appears to have begun a policy of filing civil lawsuits to recover Insurance payments made by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).  These lawsuits involve allegations against Directors and Officers of Mortgage loan originators inducing the FHA to insure Mortgages which has cost the FHA millions of dollars and will cost the FHA more in past and future Insurance payments on account of the bad and baseless Mortgages in question.  The enforcement of this policy clearly appears to be left to the local United States Attorneys.

For example, such a lawsuit was filed on Thursday, April 4, 2013 by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.  In it, the United States based its action on the following legal sources:  "The Government brings this action seeking damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, and the common law."  (Paragraph 1, page 2, Complaint, United States v. Movtady and Golden First Mortgage Corp., Filed April 4, 2013, S.D.N.Y. Case No. 13-cv-02227, 32 pages).  Download Complaint.United States of America v. Movtady and Golden First Mortgage Corp. (SDNY Filed 04.04.13, Case No. 13.cv.02227)

          The "common law" Claims include alleged "Gross Negligence," negligence, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

          If successful, this civil action and other lawsuits like it, may return substantial amounts of money to the Federal Treasury, which of course means returning substantial amounts of money to the Federal Taxpayers.  The United States Attorney's Office seeks not only Compensatory Damages in this Complaint, but also Penalties and Treble Damages.  The total award could be as much as $100 Million.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

GEORGIA ON MY MIND THREE TIMES: NATIONAL RULES WIN.

          In a recent decision, Georgia law as applied in that case matched national rules and decided the outcome.  First, an Insurer could not both deny a claim for defense and attempt to reserve the right to assert a different defense in the future.  Bank of Camilla v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., 2013 WL 1333519 *5 (M.D. Ga. March 29, 2013).

           In that case, the Federal Court held that the Insurer did not deny a claim for defense.  It was instead a claim for advancement of defense costs which were not covered, and so there was no breach of contract when the Insurer did not advance those defense costs.

           Second, defense coverage depends only on the allegations of  the underlying liability complaint.  Bank of Camilla v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., 2013 WL 1333519 *9 (M.D. Ga. March 29, 2013).

           In this case, the Federal Court held that the allegations of the ULC did not trigger defense coverage.

           Finally, since there is no Coverage in this case, the Federal Court concluded that not only the breach of contract claims should be dismissed, so should the claims for alleged Bad Faith be dismissed as well.  Bank of Camilla v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., 2013 WL 1333519 *11 (M.D. Ga. March 29, 2013).

 

          Please Read The Disclaimer.

THE BASIS OF ALL LEGAL OPINIONS MUST BE THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE:

PART TWO.

This completes an article begun here on Wednesday, April 3, 2013.

 "There's considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not."

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, quoted during oral argument at the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry/United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor.

 No, there isn't:

"The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear:  children fare just as well when they are raised by opposite-sex parents."

Amicus Brief of the American Sociological Association, the opening sentence of the CONCLUSION on page 31 of  their Brief filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry/United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor.  [Emphasis added.]

 http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20%28C_%20Gottlieb%29_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

 

          Judges are not the only ones who sometimes provide legal opinions basically by ignoring or even contradicting actual evidence to the contrary.  Other people besides Judges sometimes also offer legal opinions despite all the actual evidence to the contrary.  The author is frequently retained as an expert witness on disputed insurance issues.  At the trial of one such case, it came to light that a particular insurance company, its adjusters, claim managers, and counsel were all convinced that its insurance policy did not provide coverage because of a particular exclusion which is often found in policies of the kind at issue in that case.  However, there was no such exclusion in the policy at issue.   See also Claims Management Magazine (August 2012), available for free access on the Publications page of my website.

          In conclusion, there are both definite and also immeasurable costs associated with legal opinions which are not supported or which are even contradicted by the actual facts in the situation.  Lawyers understandably charge their clients more for protracted litigation than they do for early resolution of legal disputes.

         The legal system followed in every known jurisdiction in the United States is based on proof of facts, and there is a good reason historically:  Judgments and opinions have less value to people other than the people who issue the judgment or render the opinion if the judgments and opinions are based on fantasy or foregone conclusions rather than on proven facts.  As the Iowa Supreme Court observed in their unanimous opinion in a recent case, in which the Iowa Supreme Court recognized that statutory restrictions on same-sex marriage are valid only when supported by the actual evidence in the case:

Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.

 Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 899 (Iowa 2009).

           The costs of lives ruined by baseless legal opinions are also immeasurable consequences of this failure.  Just because these costs cannot be calculated does not mean that there are no costs.  There are.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

WHY WE NEED ACTUAL EVIDENCE FOR LEGAL OPINIONS, INCLUDING COVERAGE:

 

PART ONE.

"There's considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not."

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, quoted during oral argument at the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry/United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor.

 No, there isn't:

 

"SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS IS CLEAR:  CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX PARENTS FARE JUST AS WELL AS CHILDREN OF OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTS."

 Amicus Brief of the American Sociological Association, reproduced here from the first page of their Brief in the original all-caps typeface and font, filed in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry/United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor.

  

         The author is an insurance coverage lawyer who for thirty-five years has read and listened to Judges and lawyers and their legal opinions.  I have seen legal opinions which have been reached only by ignoring or even contradicting the proven facts.  In many of those instances the legal opinions naturally enough concerned insurance coverage. 

          Judges often provide examples of  this procedure.  For example, "all risks" property insurance policies contain a broad coverage agreement followed by many exclusions.  When guiding a client or a Court through the provisions of an all-risk policy, it is critical for insurance coverage lawyers to advise that the list of excluded causes of loss in an all-risk property policy guides the determination of coverage, whether for damage incurred during a catastrophic event like Katrina or Sandy, or in a fire or sinkhole collapse.

          The effect of this framework is to place the burden of proving an exclusion on the property insurance company after the policyholder meets the considerably lesser burden of proving coverage in the first place.  Still, some Courts occasionally twist the applicable burdens of proof to require an all-risk property insurance policyholder to prove that exclusions do not apply to the claim.  In such cases, the Courts involved do not quote the insuring agreement in the actual policy in front of them, and they cannot quote it to support a legal opinion that the policyholder under such a policy (or under any policy, for that matter) must prove that exclusions do not apply.  There is no such language written in the standard actual all-risks policy.  See Dennis J. Wall, § 7:1, "Introduction and Interpretation," in JOHN K. DiMUGNO, STEVEN PLITT  & DENNIS J. WALL, et al., CATClaims:  Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters (West November 2012 ed.).

          Another example of legal opinions that are not supported or are even contradicted by the actual facts, is provided by Courts which hold that a policyholder claiming a covered loss must prove that the loss was "fortuitous"-- even though the policy of insurance is not written to  require it.  Every claimed insurance loss must be accidental and not intentional; that has been a no-brainer as it were for a very long time.  So, it is nothing new for policyholders to prove that their insurance claim is not for a loss that they intentionally caused, lest insurance pay not for a loss but for a crime or the equivalent.

          What is new is for Courts to require that property insurance claimants meet some legal burden of proof, selected and shaped only by the Courts involved, that "all risks" means "fortuitous loss" -- even though the insurance policy does not say anything of the kind.  See  Dennis J. Wall, § 7:4, "'Fortuitous,'" in JOHN K. DiMUGNO, STEVEN PLITT & DENNIS J. WALL, et al., CATClaims:  Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters (West November 2012 ed.).

To be continued .....

Please Read The Disclaimer.

"AS GOES OHIO" ... HOW GOES OHIO WITH MEDICAID, EXACTLY?

         An influential White House aide's announcement of a change in public healthcare was announced on a date sometime before Friday, March 22, 2013.  The announcement was that the Obama Administration will authorize vouchers to be paid with Federal Taxpayer Medicaid money.  See "Aide Revisits Medicaid, ACA:  Vouchers By Another Name" posted here on March 25, 2013, with a postscript posted here on Friday, March 29, 2013.  This apparent change in public healthcare policy with respect to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, as reported in The New York Times, was privately announced over the telephone between White House aide Valerie Jarrett and Ohio Governor Kasich.   See Robert Pear, "Expanding Medicaid With Private Insurance / A Sharp Departure On Health Care Law" p. A14, col. 6 (New York Times Nat'l ed., Friday, March 22, 2013).

       This change in healthcare policy was publicly announced for the first time on Friday, March 29, 2013, although there was no specific mention of Ohio in it or in its linked Frequently Asked Questions.    See Cindy Mann, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director, "Continuing to Work With States to Build New Systems of Health Coverage" (posted on Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services Blog on Friday, March 29, 2013).

        It is a frequently asked question what if any change to Medicaid will take place in Ohio.  In fact, there has been no public announcement at all concerning healthcare law and Medicaid policy change, if any, in Ohio or anywhere else with the single exception of Arkansas.

         In Ms. Mann's blog post, she wrote that "[p]remium assistance has been a longstanding option in both Medicaid and CHIP and is one way to accomplish those shared goals."

        Maybe.  Maybe this is nothing more than a recent application of a pre-existing healthcare policy without any effect on the ACA passed into law by Congress.

       That is not how this policy changed is being perceived.  "The plan is a departure from the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which calls for an expansion of government-run Medicaid, the health program for the poor."  Alex Wayne, "Some U.S. States Can Shift Medicaid Funds to Exchanges" (Bloomberg.com, Saturday, March 30, 2013).  See, in addition, Editorial, "Using Medicaid Dollars for Private Insurance / There Are Major Benefits And Big Risks In What Some Republican-led States Want To Do" p. A16  (New York Times Nat'l ed., Monday, April 1, 2013).

To be continued on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog ......

 

 

SAY IT AIN'T SO, SHEILA: THE FDIC'S SECRET SETTLEMENTS.

          I am currently reading with interest Sheila C. Bair's book, "Bull By The Horns".  It is a description of the time spent in office by the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation's former Chairman, written by the Chairman herself to describe her office.  During her tenure, which ended on or about July 6, 2009, much of the Financial Crisis exploded on our economy.

           While I am reading Ms. Bair's account of her tenure, reports have surfaced concerning secret FDIC settlements made on her watch with Directors and Officers who allegedly caused or contributed to the cause of the Great Financial Fiasco.  In apparent violation of Federal law, the FDIC agreed to keep the settlements secret unless a specific request was made for disclosure of that particular settlement.  See, e.g.,  E. Scott Reckard, "FDIC Begins to Reveal Settlements Related to Financial Crisis" (Los Angeles Times Online, posted March 19, 2013); William K. Black, "Business Blog / Which Aspect of the FDIC's Litigation Failures is The Most Embarrassing and Damaging?" (Huffington Post, posted March 12, 2013).  Reportedly, Ms. Bair was leading the FDIC "when most of the settlements were completed".  See Scott Reckard, Los Angeles Times, supra.

           Sheila Bair does not mention the fact of FDIC settlements with Directors and Officers of failed banks in her book, let alone that the FDIC agreed to keep them secret, or at least I cannot find any mention of them in her book.  We shall now, perhaps, all hear her side of the story soon.

           In response to a recently published newspaper report in the Los Angeles Times, the FDIC has begun posting information concerning its previously secret settlements on its web site.  The documents will be posted in increments.  As of March 29, 2013, the initial postings consist of  about 45 sets of documents (not simply individual settlements, but in some cases, groups of settlements).  They are collectively labeled by the FDIC as "Professional Liability Agreements by State Since 2008".  The FDIC site also contains a list of 53 "Professional Liability Lawsuits" filed by the FDIC against "officers and directors, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, brokers or others" and "fidelity bond carriers and title insurance companies," between July 2, 2010 and March 7, 2013.

           Examining the 45 pdf's posted to date will take awhile.  If I find anything 'newsworthy' in them, I will post my reviews of these settlement documents as I am able to complete my reviews.  In the meantime, the settlement which has attracted the most popular interest at the present time is the December, 2012 settlement between the FDIC and Michael Perry, who was CEO of failed IndyMac Bank located in California.  IndyMac's failure "cost the [FDIC] $13 billion -- the biggest loss in its 80-year history."  Scott Reckard, Los Angeles Times, supra.  [Emphasis added.]

           The FDIC reportedly secretly settled its claims against Mr. Perry for his agreement to personally pay $1 Million, plus an agreement by Mr. Perry not to engage in the banking industry (for awhile, at least) and also with provisions guaranteeing the FDIC's pursuit of IndyMac's "liability insurers" for $11 Million more.  Professor William K. Black, Huffington Post, supra.

           The Perry settlement was so good that it was announced in EMails sent to news organizations -- reportedly by Mr. Perry's lawyers, not by the FDIC.  The terms of this particular settlement were therefore public knowledge in December, 2012 when the settlement was reached between Mr. Perry and the FDIC.  See Kevin LaCroix, "IndyMac CEO Settles FDIC's Failed Bank Suit" (The D & O Diary, posted December 17, 2012).   

           In contrast, one alleged seller and/or deliverer of Mortgages to IndyMac Bank, Quicken, agreed to pay 6.5 times as much money, or $6.5 Million, to settle the FDIC's claims against it, and "[w]ithout admitting liability".  (See the 65th page in the 230 page pdf labeled, "IndyMac2", among the FDIC's "Professional Liability Settlement Agreements by State Since 2008".)

           On the whole, it seems less expensive to be a failed CEO than it does to be a failed Mortgage 'seller and/or deliverer'.  On the whole, as well, there are many legal entanglements with secret settlements that make these agreements unwise, and the price of keeping them secret exorbitant.  This is a good rule of thumb to follow when making all types of insurance settlements, it seems:  As a general rule at least, keep them open and transparent.  See generally DENNIS J. WALL, 1 LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH § 3:107, "Settlement of Third Party Bad Faith Claims:  Confidentiality (protected) or Concealment (Void)" (West Third Edition; 2013 Supplement in process); 2 id. § 9:28, "Settlement of First Party Bad Faith Claims:  Confidentiality (Protected) or Concealment (Void)".    

 Please Read The Disclaimer.