The court seems to have found/ruled that Marsh correctly advised their client “Tiara HOA” that coverage was per occurrence, so I wonder why the client sued Marsh instead of suing the insurer for wrongful denial of the second claim?
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.
The court seems to have found/ruled that Marsh correctly advised their client “Tiara HOA” that coverage was per occurrence, so I wonder why the client sued Marsh instead of suing the insurer for wrongful denial of the second claim?