 |
||||
Miscellaneous E&O |
||||
     |
What jackpot? The insured marketing consultant introduced a client to a promotional event company, and the client worked with the promotional event company to establish a promotional contest. As part of these services, the promotional event company was expected to purchase prize indemnification insurance. when a contestant won the $1 million jackpot and tried to claim the prize, the client turned to the promotional event company for payment from the prize indemnification insurance policy. Since the promotional event company never purchased the insurance, it refused to pay. The contestant brought an action against all involved, including the marketing consultant, for failure to pay the prize. The marketing consultant has brought an action against their insurance broker for failure to place proper coverage, and the insurance broker's professional liability insurer is providing coverage and a defense. The insured marketing consultant claims that they were never told and were now aware of the contest exclusion. Additionally, it appears that the policy was not produced in a timely manner. The claim is currently being litigated. | |||
In California: BSR Insurance Services CA Lic # 0E72686 |
||||
| No pets... or children. A couple consulted a real estate broker to purchase a residence in which they could also run a day care business. The broker made inquiries and showed them a townhouse, which they eventually purchased. After closing, the couple was told by the townhouse association that they were forbidden to use the property for a daycare business. The couple filed suite for negligence. | ||||
 |
||||
| The system is down. A systems procurement consultant did not adequately understand the system needs of a particular client. When the system recommended by the consultant was installed it did not work as the client expected, resulting in significant operational disruption and financial loss to the client. An expert has concluded that the client lost business greater than twenty times the cost of the system due to the disruptions caused by the inadequate system. The client concluded that the system had to be scrapped. The resulting lawsuit alleged negligence, among other things, on the part of the consultant. | ||||
 |
||||
Claims Examples provided by Markel. |
||||
 Applications and forms viewable with Adobe Reader |
||||
Please remember that each situation is unique. This page is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Do not hesitate to contact us regarding your particular situation. |
||||
 |
||||