This case takes place in Georgia and involves a provision of an insurance policy with fairly high limits. The insured had given her consent to settle several legal malpractice cases pending against her. The cases were tried, and a large amount of pre-judgment interest was assessed on the covered insurance limits. The policy provided for additional coverage of post-judgment interest as a supplementary payment, however it did not address pre-judgment interest. Although the state in which the plaintiff lived provides for pre-judgment interest on judgments, the insurance company contended that it will not be provided as it was never on their policy.
Question(s) For Expert Witness
- 1. Would an insurance company using reasonable diligence and good faith include information in the insurance policy as to whether or not the payment of pre-judgment interest, which is required by law, will be a supplementary payment?
2. Would a reasonable construction of the insurance policy by practitioners in the field of insurance be that the pre-judgment interest is covered as a supplementary payment, or is not so covered or regarded as an ambiguous provision?
Expert Witness Response E-011178
I am highly qualified to review this case. I have served as a past president of American Risk Insurance. I have taught and published on liability insurance and hold the CPCU designations. A lot of times it comes to policy language. I would be glad to examine this policy closely. A reasonable construction of the insurance policy could, indeed, be that pre-judgement interest is covered as a supplementary payment.
Contact this expert witness