| If you are involved in a lawsuit with someone who has insurance, this may interest you.
Policies of insurance provide that the insured is entitled to be indemnified and defended by his insurer. As a practical matter, when the insured is sued, the insurer either appoints an attorney to defend the insured, or pays an attorney selected by the insured to provide a defense.
But the insured remains the named defendant in the lawsuit.
In a recent case, plaintiff claimed defendant's negligence caused personal injuries. Defendant's insurance carrier provided a defense. A jury returned a verdict against defendant. At that point, plaintiff asked the Court to convert the judgment to one against the insurance company in order to permit plaintiff to levy against the carrier's assets for collection.
YOU BE THE JUDGE: If a party to a lawsuit has insurance, isn't a judgment against the insured also a judgment against the insurance company?
The trial judge entered such a converted judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed.
The Appellate Court noted plaintiff had not advanced any equitable or legal arguments that would justify such relief. Defendant and his insurance carrier were separate. Plaintiff had sued defendant, not the insurance carrier. There was no evidence that defendant or his insurance carrier intended the insurance contract to grant any rights to plaintiff as a beneficiary. Moreover, the insurance carrier was not disclaiming coverage and was not refusing to pay the judgment.
The decision points out that a courtroom can bring justice and may be the only way to protect your rights. We know courtrooms; we have harnessed the power of the law in courtrooms to bring justice for our clients for decades. Please contact us to discuss how we can help you in a new lawsuit or provide a "second opinion" about your pending lawsuit. There is no obligation for the initial consultation. |
