Insurance

Bad Faith

Cooper & Scully, P.C. has been at the forefront in the development of Texas law in the area of bad faith. Our attorneys have tried numerous bad faith cases to successful conclusion. We have the experience to analyze and evaluate the exposure presented by these cases and to advise insurance clients on steps to take to minimize risks.

Coverage

Cooper & Scully, P.C. understands and analyzes the most complex insurance matters. Cooper & Scully, P.C. represents both insurers and insureds in disputes over coverage afforded by various policies. In addition, Cooper & Scully, P.C. is among a relatively small number of firms that are equipped to represent reinsurers on various insurance matters. Our experience includes drafting policies and endorsements, representing insurers before regulatory authorities, and rendering coverage opinions regarding claims presented to insurers.



Representative Cases:

Cigna Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Bradley's elec., Inc., 33 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2000, pet. filed) (CGL carrier owed no duty to defend patent infringement suit under advertising injury provisions of policy)

Western Alliance Ins. Co. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, 176 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 1999) (examining whether insurer can exhaust its policy limits in settling for named insured, to detriment of additional insured)

Hartman v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 40 F. Supp.2d 837 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (statutory penalties under Article 21.55 did not apply to claims for recovery of defense costs)

Adams v. Great American Lloyd's Ins. Co., 891 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.--Austin 1995) (Employer's alleged negligent failure to include employee on health policy was not covered under CGL policy)

Northern Insurance v. Austin Commercial, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 436 (N.D. Tex. 1994) (No. 3:94-CV-0120-T) (no coverage for additional insured where no claim of negligence as made against named insured)

Hartford Ins. Co. v. Commerce & Industry Ins. Co., 864 S.W.2d 648 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (no coverage under auto policy for truck not owned by named insured)

Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kitty Hawk Airways, Inc., 964 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1992) (analyzing sufficiency of ROR and whether insured prejudiced)

Laster v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 755 F. Supp. 985 (N.D. Tex. 1991) (analyzing insured's duty of notice, cooperation and whether breach of negated coverage)

Allen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 567 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1978) (Board of Insurance was necessary party to action alleging that policies contained an endorsement contrary to applicable statutory provisions)

St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Recognition International, Inc., No. 3-97-CV0590-L (N.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2001). No duty to defend or duty to indemnify for libel, slander, or belittlement claims under coverage B of CGL policy or excess policy.