What should you be looking for and what does the case law say that you need to prove your case.

Your case will often turn on what your expert finds at a scene investigation and how that investigation is conducted. We will discuss realities on the ground with a fire scene investigator.

You see the reference to NFPA 921 standard in all of your reports. We will walk you through it and discuss why its critical for any fire investigation.

We have all heard it before – you are only entitled to actual cash value because a defendant only has to compensate  old for old. But is that what the case law says?

Whether an Insured cooperates or not can be the difference between a good recovery and no recovery at all. We will discuss the dynamics of the Insurer – Insured relationship including the issue of who controls an action.

Determining whether the pleadings trigger coverage in respect of an Additional Insured will turn on a combination of the underlying facts of a loss and the wording of the endorsement that adds a party as an Additional Insured. Be aware of the difference between limiting and expansive language.

Understanding at an early stage when the duty to defend is triggered can save a lot of time and expense for an Insurer and can provide additional strategic flexibility in claims handling.

As parties to commercial agreements become more sophisticated about the insurance implications in their agreements, parties can be assuming the risk of those that are not even parties to the contract. Join us for the last of our risk-shifting seminars.

We will drill into the language in commercial agreements in order to better understand how parties address who is going to bear the risk of a specific type of loss.

Commercial leases and construction agreements often provide for one party or another to assume the risk of loss in a given circumstance. An otherwise promising subrogation opportunity might be undone by a risk-shifting provision in the underlying agreement. This topic is equally important for those advancing subrogated claims and those defending against them. It is a tricky topic that is worth the investment of your time.

In most subrogation cases, obtaining an expert will be critical in building your case. It is important to pick the right expert and leverage that expertise to help you understand the technical aspects of your case.

You think you have a case worth pursuing. What are your next steps to flesh out your theory of liability? We will discuss strategies to help you to build the foundation for a successful recovery operation.

As important as identifying files that provide a good opportunity for recovery is identifying those that don’t. Learn about the basics of negligence, contractual and statutory liability as an analytical framework to analyze whether you have a case to pursue or not.

The Regulation provides for deeming an expense to be incurred if an insurer unreasonably withheld a benefit. Once again the concept of ‘reasonableness’ is front and centre.

It is commonplace for retroactive attendant care to be in play based on the pleadings. What are the indicators that this exposure is real?

Whether you want to roll up your sleeves or hire accounts to roll up theirs, you need to understand the numbers.

It never hurts to talk about business, banking and tax records. We’ll do just that.

Denying treatment on the basis that a claimant has sustained a MIG injury? Make sure your medical and other reasons are on the right side of the line.

Denying treatment on the basis that a claimant has sustained a MIG injury? Make sure your notice covers all the bases that need to be covered. If you know all the ways that Insureds can get themselves out of the MIG, make sure you avoid all of the things Insurers do to get Insureds out of the MIG.

Absent a consent defence, Insurers must defend the policyholder or the policy to the extent of minimum limits. This is back to the basics of adding insurers as Statutory Third Parties.

This can be a most impactful defence to a claim against your policyholder. But it is riddled with factual booby traps. We’ll tell you all about it.

What is the scope of adjusting notes that are producible at the LAT? The answer is that it depends on a number of factors.

Everyone knows that there is a two-year limitation. But two years from when and does the LAT have the discretion to extend?

Section 33 provides a valuable tool for an insurer to obtain the information reasonably required for the purpose of adjusting a claim. But it’s never as simple as it sounds.

Notice of a claim has been received, an AB application package has been sent, and an OCF 1 is received, or at least expected within 30 days. How can things possibly go wrong?