So Silverstein wants his cake and ice too? He wants the insurance company to pay out all his claims, then give up the right to subrogation so silverstein can collect money again for the same loss he’s already collect on???
BTW what a shocker that silverstein’s lawyers disagree with the decesion and will appeal…..
Silverstein may have losses that were not covered by the insurance contract that he is seeking to recover. This would not be double dipping. He has a deductible that is recoverable from the responsible party.
Secondly, I take exception with the Judge’s comments about what subrogation is intended for – ‘” The purpose of subrogation is to prevent whoever buys insurance from “recovering twice for one harm,” Baer wrote.’ The purpose of subrogation is to give the insurance company the right to legally recover the loss. When this happens it benefits the insured’s loss exposure and therefore financially benefits the insured.
The article most likely is incorrect that other insureds gave up their right of subrogation recovery from third parties. Policy language says they give up their right of recovery agains the INSURED, if the INSUREd caused the loss, it does not say they give up their right of recovery against third parties.
The attack occurred 6 months after the policy effective dates. In that time Willis had failed to get all the primary and excess policy language concurrent (I actually think they didn’t even think about it) and only one of the excess policies, the one under discussion here, had been issued.
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. That, along with Silverstein’s decision to insure two buildings standing side by side for only half their value, is the reason this is still such a mess almost 7 years after the loss.
I’ll bet Willis hasn’t given back any of the commission!
What I don’t understand is how Willis was never brought in on an E&O claim by Silverstein. Not only that, I think Willis is still Silversatein’s broker.
Probably Silverstein’s wife’s nephew is the account exec.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
So Silverstein wants his cake and ice too? He wants the insurance company to pay out all his claims, then give up the right to subrogation so silverstein can collect money again for the same loss he’s already collect on???
BTW what a shocker that silverstein’s lawyers disagree with the decesion and will appeal…..
Silverstein may have losses that were not covered by the insurance contract that he is seeking to recover. This would not be double dipping. He has a deductible that is recoverable from the responsible party.
Secondly, I take exception with the Judge’s comments about what subrogation is intended for – ‘” The purpose of subrogation is to prevent whoever buys insurance from “recovering twice for one harm,” Baer wrote.’ The purpose of subrogation is to give the insurance company the right to legally recover the loss. When this happens it benefits the insured’s loss exposure and therefore financially benefits the insured.
Other insurers might think about the impact of timely processing on future accounts.
Stitch in time, saves nine.
The subrogation clause does both – It prevents the insured from recovering twice from one harm by assigning the right of recovery to the insurer.
It can only give the company the legal right to recover the loss by taking it away from the insured.
The article most likely is incorrect that other insureds gave up their right of subrogation recovery from third parties. Policy language says they give up their right of recovery agains the INSURED, if the INSUREd caused the loss, it does not say they give up their right of recovery against third parties.
The attack occurred 6 months after the policy effective dates. In that time Willis had failed to get all the primary and excess policy language concurrent (I actually think they didn’t even think about it) and only one of the excess policies, the one under discussion here, had been issued.
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. That, along with Silverstein’s decision to insure two buildings standing side by side for only half their value, is the reason this is still such a mess almost 7 years after the loss.
I’ll bet Willis hasn’t given back any of the commission!
What I don’t understand is how Willis was never brought in on an E&O claim by Silverstein. Not only that, I think Willis is still Silversatein’s broker.
Probably Silverstein’s wife’s nephew is the account exec.