|Subject:||Discuss tender to Travelers, FSA, 2pm eastern|
|Date:||Wed, 6 Sep 2017 21:35:57 +0000|
|From:||Jean Faulconbridge <email@example.com>|
|To:||firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>|
Greg! I have been remiss!!
Attached is the original tender from Zurich to Travelers, per your request.
Thinking about the letter we plan to have you send to Travelers, I think at this point (since I have delayed things) we need the letter to serve more than the single purpose. Travelers is trying to bully Zurich into dollar-for-dollar contribution to settlements of the lawsuits. Travelers has a duty to defend, and primary coverage, and so do we, because of the independent acts of negligence that have been alleged. The correct analysis might be that as an “insured” under both policies, Travelers would owe only 50% of the defense, but because of the Insured Contract, Travelers owes its own insured, Joga, the duty to reimburse for the defense of FSA. This would erode limits, but Travelers has plenty of limits. I believe our letter needs to take Travelers through an analysis of its Business Auto form, and facts (the auto hired by Joga’s employee leading to primary coverage), to lead to the conclusion that Travelers is Primary for FSA’s vicarious liability as “an insured”, and Zurich is Excess for FSA’s vicarious liability, and primary for FSA’s independent negligence, if any. But as to the defense, Travelers owes it all.