Let's say you are sued for negligent design services and the amount of the claim is $500,000 and let's say that it is a frivolous claim against you
Now let's say that after generating $50,000 of legal fees to defend yourself you receive an offer to settle from the plaintiff for $200,000. You want to reject this offer because you didn't do anything wrong and it feels like extortion to you.
If your policy does not have a hammer clause, then your insurer must respect your right not to settle. If, however, your policy includes a hammer clause, the insurer would be within its rights to cap its liability in this matter for $250,000 (the $50,000 in legal fees generated so far plus the $200,000 settlement offer).
If you continue to fight the matter, and incur another $10,000 in legal fees before losing a $400,000 judgment you would be on the hook for $210,000 ($60,000 in legal fees plus $400,000 judgment -$250,000 insurer liability maximum). This would have been a huge gamble for you to have taken and lost.
Let's say you continue to fight the matter but the outcome was different. Let's say you incurred another $10,000 in legal fees before being dismissed from the matter. In this case the insurance company could not be happier. While they were prepared to spend $250,000, they will end up spending only $60,000 in legal fees while you took all the risk. Talk about adding salt to the wound!
Happily, not all insurance companies include a hammer clause in their policies. For instance we have never seen a hammer clause in the CNA/Schinnerer policies or in the St. Paul Travelers policies. We have seen hammer clauses in some of the policies offered by these insurers:
XL/DP
ACE American Insurance Company
Zurich North America
Beazley Insurance Company
Everest National/Insight
Houston Casualty Company/RAMCO
Lexington Insurance Company
New Hampshire Insurance Company
|