Just to tip you off, my blogging may be a little sparse over the next two months or so. I’m writing a book with the working title “When Words Collide: Resolving Insurance Coverage and Claims Disputes.” The publisher and I are shooting for a first draft by March 1, so I’m going to be real busy for the next 8+ weeks.
The book comes from my 30 years of assisting agents in getting wrongly (IMO) denied claims paid. I share, with dozens and dozens of examples, many of these claims and, in each instance, how we pleaded our case for coverage with, I believe, a success rate at well over 90%.
It’s intended to be both a reference book and an instructional/educational tool that will be of value to agents, brokers, underwriters, adjusters, risk managers, attorneys (plaintiff and defense), and others. There’s some “legalese” in it (I can include a number of examples of how I’ve used doctrines like noscitur a sociis to get claims paid), but it’s really designed to be a practical guide to resolving coverage and claims disputes without resorting to litigation.
Until it’s ready for publication, I might be blogging less and/or posting some advance book excerpts as I write. I’ll play it by ear but wanted to let you know that I might not be as prolific for a while.
Best wishes for a great 2018!
Bill Wilson
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- The Invisible But Potentially Catastrophic Homeowners Exclusion That’s Not An Exclusion - September 19, 2023
- Revisiting the Illusory Coverage Assertion Following a Claim Denial - September 19, 2023
- FREE Webcast: How to Survive and Thrive in a Hard Market - August 1, 2023
Bill
I have had a few claims denied under the Spoecial cause of Loss section B. 3. I have argued the language of the lead in clause to that section and even got V.U. Support but still was denied by the insurer. One even got a legal opinion from a lawyer that agreed with them. I think your book should include the correct understanding of the B. 3. Lead in paragraph.
Chuck, I will if there’s room. Since this is a print book and not just ebook like my last one, the size is an issue. I could devote 50 pages easily to this, whether/why faulty workmanship is a CGL occurrence, the HO “where you reside” issue, etc.
What I’m thinking about is creating a series from the book of mini books (aka white papers). The nonconcurrent causation language is a good topic. Another one I want to do is the history and REAL intent behind the CGL property damage exclusions, especially the “your work” exclusion and subcontractor exception. When it comes to the “impaired property” exclusion, I bet not 1 agent in 1000 really understands it.
So, what do you think about a primary “basics” book followed by a series of shorter works on specific topics?
Bill
I like the idea. Donb’t forget the “part of the work” exclusion where the insurers do not cover the whole rather than just the specific part worked on. Let me know if I can help in any way.
Looking forward to it Bill. Best of luck. I’ll be purchasing for sure as soon as it comes out. Happy New Year!
Thanks. As I dig deeper and deeper, I’m learning what one court said:
“Forms of applications and policies (like those used in this case) of a most complicated and elaborate structure, were prepared, and filled with covenants, exceptions, stipulations, provisos, rates, regulations, and conditions, rendering the policy void in a great number of contingencies. These provisions were of such bulk and character that they would not be understood by men in general, even if subjected to a careful and laborious study; by men in general, they were sure not to be studied at all. The study of them was rendered particularly unattractive by a profuse intermixture of discourses on subjects in which a premium payer would have no interest.
“This compound [policy], if read by him, would, unless he were an extraordinary man, be an inexplicable riddle, a mere flood of darkness and confusion. Some of the most material stipulations were concealed in a mass of rubbish, on the back side of the policy and the following page, where few would expect to find anything more than a dull appendix, and where scarcely anyone would think of looking for information so important as that the company claimed a special exemption from the operation of the general law of the land relating to the only business in which the company professed to be engaged.
“As if it were feared that, notwithstanding these discouraging circumstances, some extremely eccentric person might attempt to examine and understand the meaning of the involved and intricate net in which he was to be entangled, it was printed in such small type, and in lines so long and so crowded, that the perusal of it was made physically difficult, painful, and injurious.”
DeLancy v. Rockingham Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 52 N.H. 581 (1873)