Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Chris Lazarini Comments on Ambiguity in Insurance Policy

Securities Litigation Commentator

Publications

December 12, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini commented a case in which a broker-dealer claimed the term "final judgment" in its insurance policy was ambiguous and should be construed against its insurance carrier, as is typical in most cases. However, the court, finding no ambiguity in the clause, affirmed summary judgment for the insurance carrier.

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Hantz Financial Services, Inc. vs. American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co. & National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, No. 15-2237 (6th Cir., 11/9/16) 

* If a term in an insurance policy is ambiguous, it should be construed against the insurer; however, courts should not read ambiguity into a policy where none exists.
** "Final judgment" is a term of art meaning a judgment at the trial court level ending litigation on the merits. 

Between 2000 and 2008, an employee of broker-dealer Hantz Financial stole more than $2.6 million from firm clients. By July 2009, Hantz had settled the claims of 20 clients without litigation and one FINRA arbitration before the final hearing. The firm unsuccessfully defended another FINRA arbitration (FINRA ID #09-03846 (Detroit, 6/15/10). The adverse Award was confirmed in state court in December 2010, and affirmed on appeal in January 2012.

During this period, Hantz communicated regularly with its carriers, National Union (Fidelity Bond) and AISLIC (E&O Policy). In March 2013, Hantz sued the carriers after National Union denied coverage and AISLIC failed to send a final coverage decision. The district court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding Hantz's loss was not "direct" as required by the Fidelity Bond and applying an exclusion in the E&O Policy for the employee's "knowingly" wrongful acts (see SLA 2015-37). 

Conducting a de novo review, the Court of Appeals first examines the Fidelity Bond. Declining to address whether Hantz's losses were "direct" losses, it focuses instead on the threshold question of whether Hantz sued within the Fidelity Bond's contractual limitations provision, which requires suits to be brought within 24 months of settlement or final judgment. Hantz conceded that its claims on the settlements with non-litigants fell outside of the time period, but argued that National Union implicitly waived the limitations period on the settled arbitration by requiring Hantz to cooperate in a lengthy investigation. The Court disagrees, finding no evidence that National Union induced Hantz to believe it would not enforce the limitations clause. Instead, the evidence shows that National Union stated repeatedly that it was not waiving any rights or defenses under the Fidelity Bond.

As to the arbitration that was tried to an adverse Award, Hantz contended that the term "final judgment," as it appears in the limitations clause, was ambiguous and should be construed against National Union, so as to capture the time during which Hantz appealed the district court's decision. Rejecting this argument, the Court finds no ambiguity, citing the almost universal agreement among Michigan and federal courts that the judgment of a trial court ending litigation on the merits is a "final judgment." The Court therefore affirms summary judgment for National Union, although for different reasons than the trial court.

The Court affirms summary judgment for AISLIC through the "knowingly" wrongful conduct exclusion, rejecting Hantz's argument that the district court's decision rendered its failure to supervise rider illusory. The rider is not illusory because it covered negligent supervision claims arising out of the negligent conduct of Hantz's employees.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.