This is a very good post on the implications of a defense lawyer attempting to bifurcate a tort case into separate decisions on liability and damages, but as I was reading it, my thought, not knowing the law of Maryland in any great detail, was that bifurcating the case does not necessarily remove the potential third-party bad faith claim against the insurer if an excess verdict is returned. I see one of the commenters said the same thing.
Categories
- Bad Faith
- Contact Me
- Contribution and Indemnity between Insurers
- Duty to Defend
- Duty to Indemnify
- First Party Insurance
- Industry Developments
- Legal Info
- Liability Policies
- Links
- Miscellaneous
- Reimbursement of Legal Fees
- Settlements, Assignments and Reasonableness
- Subrogation
- Subscribe
- UIM/UM Coverage
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- June 2013
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- July 2010
- March 2009
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- February 2004
Meta
Insurance Coverage Blog · Insurance coverage analysis.
Proudly powered by WordPress
·
Theme: Pilcrow by Automattic.
I stumbled across this blog post discussing the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. You comment is exactly correct. Two Maryland lawyers called me and made exactly the same point. Still, I think anytime a policy limit is offered before a jury verdict, it hurts – at least somewhat – you bad faith claim.
Thanks for reading. You have a great blog.
Ron Miller
http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com