Difference between insurance defense and other types of law Forum

[mikec0824]

This may seem a dumb question, but I do not understand the difference between insurance defense and other types of tort related law. For example a firm I worked for handled product liability cases, but it was always through the companies liability insurance carrier I.e. They were paying the bills and/or any judgment or settlement. The same can be said for several companies we represented in premises liability matters.

So I guess my question is, when are cases like product liability and premises liability not considered insurance defense? It seems like every type of liability is being insured these days. Even employment discrimination is being insured, so is that considered insurance defense as well?

[Actus Reus]

This may seem a dumb question, but I do not understand the difference between insurance defense and other types of tort related law. For example a firm I worked for handled product liability cases, but it was always through the companies liability insurance carrier I.e. They were paying the bills and/or any judgment or settlement. The same can be said for several companies we represented in premises liability matters.

So I guess my question is, when are cases like product liability and premises liability not considered insurance defense? It seems like every type of liability is being insured these days. Even employment discrimination is being insured, so is that considered insurance defense as well?

Insurance defense > face on a bus personal injury. But not by much. It's like car wreck stuff.

[mikec0824]

This may seem a dumb question, but I do not understand the difference between insurance defense and other types of tort related law. For example a firm I worked for handled product liability cases, but it was always through the companies liability insurance carrier I.e. They were paying the bills and/or any judgment or settlement. The same can be said for several companies we represented in premises liability matters.

So I guess my question is, when are cases like product liability and premises liability not considered insurance defense? It seems like every type of liability is being insured these days. Even employment discrimination is being insured, so is that considered insurance defense as well?

Insurance defense > face on a bus personal injury. But not by much. It's like car wreck stuff.

I understand that. However, as I said, in product liability cases, the company has liability insurance who pays the bill, same in premises liability. In employment matters, many companies have employment practice liability insurance, so again, if say a discrimination suit is brought, the insurance company is paying the bill.

So is the differentiation between what people consider to be insurance defense only based on the type of work you are doing. I.e. Is it insurance defense if you are defending an insured who rear ended someone, but not when you are defending a company in a product liability suit, despite the fact that in both cases an insurance company is paying the legal fees and will be paying any judgment or settlement

[Actus Reus]

In one, you're representing an insurance company. In the other, a company with an insurance policy.

[mikec0824]

In one, you're representing an insurance company. In the other, a company with an insurance policy.

Thats incorrect. Even in the lowest end of insurance defense, say for example a rear end collision, you are still technically representing the individual at fault. The insurance company is a client as well, and there are complicated issues relating to potential conflicts of interest which I will not get into, but the tortfeasor is still your client. You are representing an individual with an insurance policy, the same as you would be representing a company with an insurance policy in a products or premises case. That is where my question comes from, as I do not understand when a big products or premises case would not be considered insurance defense, as large companies have equally large liability coverage which in turn makes it a type of insurance defense. Unless I am missing something?

[El Dangeroso]

I would consider it "insurance defense" regardless of whether you are representing an insured with the carrier paying your fees or you're representing a carrier in a claim denial matter.

I think when people refer to ID on this forum, however, they have in mind the sort of firm that does a lot of claims processing and is basically assisting a carrier in denying coverage. And my impression is that is where the disdain for ID comes from. This isn't really that common though in my experience, and I believe is handled in house by many carriers.

In the latter instance, where the insured is your client, and you are handling a premises liability case, a car accident, or an employment law matter, your day-to-day is essentially no different than if you were representing an individual or corporation directly. I think the difference is that you have an insurance company overlord that is closely scrutinizing your bill. You may not have as long of a leash as you would if you were representing a F500 company on an employment discrimination case, for example. The other negative is that you don't have a lot of control over who you represent (you contract with a carrier, and they submit your cases to you). As a practical matter, in a lot of smaller markets at mid-sized firms, the simple fact is that a lot of work comes from these sorts of cases in which you represent an insured on behalf of major carriers.

[majic1984]

"Insurance defense" work is where an insurer has hired an attorney (usually under a reservation of rights), at its own costs, to defend its insured(s) against a suit alleging damages that are potentially covered under an insurance policy. Insurance defense work carries a negative connotation because the insurer typically pays extremely low rates to defend its insureds, imposes extremely stringent billing guidelines, and often slashes significant portions of the defense attorney's billable time. In exchange for the low rates, stringent billing guidelines, and time write-offs (and often an agreement not to sue the insurer or its affiliates in any matters), the "insurance defense" lawyers are typically put on an "insurance defense counsel list" whereby the insurer sends them a large volume of cases to work. As the OP noted, there are a variety of liability policies which afford a defense to the insured(s) (D&O, Fiduciary Liability, EPLI, Pollution, CGL, etc.), thus, the work is typically no less interesting or complex than other cases, but, it's very difficult when the insurer is beating you down on costs and you have to work an inordinate amount of hours to make up for the low rate and time write-offs.

"Insurance coverage" work is a whole different animal. "Insurance coverage" work includes the situation where the insurer hires an attorney to represent the insurer against the insured(s)' or other third parties' (in direct action states) claims that the insurer owes defense and/or indemnity in a particular case. Typically, insurers spare no expense in representing themselves and are willing to pay decent to high rates to litigate the terms of their insurance policies. There is also "insurance coverage" work on the policyholder side. As you can imagine, the policyholder/insured(s) hire an attorney at their own costs to seek a defense and/or indemnity from its insurer where the insurer has denied coverage.