In a strained decision, the Alaska Supreme Court in Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C., 370 P.3d 1101 (2016), answered certified questions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that Alaska’s statute regarding independent counsel in insurance situations prohibited insurers from seeking reimbursement of fees and costs incurred during an ROR defense even if it was later determined that there was no obligation to provide a defense because there was no coverage. Instead of critically analyzing the Alaska Supreme Court’s judicial legislating and strained analysis in rejecting the insurance company’s right to reimbursement, I would encourage the reader to analyze the case in order to come up with the reader’s own viewpoint on whether the Alaska Supreme Court stayed within its constitutional role of interpreting the statute as opposed to striking the statute down in the guise of legislative intent.
A Respected Expert Witness And Authority On Insurance Law In The U.S.
- TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSURANCE POLICY’S APPRAISAL CLAUSE ALLOWS CAUSATION DETERMINATIONS by Jordan R. Plitt
- THE SPLIT LANDSCAPE REGARDING DEPRECIATION OF LABOR COSTS WHEN CALCULATING ACTUAL CASH VALUE by Jordan R. Plitt
- CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS REFUSES TO EXPAND THE TRIGGER FOR WHEN “CUMIS” COUNSEL IS REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2860 by Jordan R. Plitt
- DOES A WATER-BACKUP EXCLUSION INCLUDE SEWAGE? by Jordan R. Plitt