Advertisement

June 17, 2013

Statutory Damages Constitute Covered Loss Under Professional Liability Policy

The court in Flagship Credit Corp. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 11-20408, 2012 WL 2299484 (5th Cir. June 15, 2012), held that statutory minimum damages for violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code were not “penalties” and, therefore, constituted covered “loss” under a professional liability policy issued to an automobile financing company.

The plaintiff debtors in the underlying consumer fraud class action in Flagship alleged that the insured had “substantively and procedurally” failed to provide statutorily-mandated notice regarding their collateral pursuant to the Texas Business and Commerce Code.  The applicable Texas statute specified that a debtor is entitled to recover actual damages (e.g. loss resulting from the debtor’s inability to obtain, or increased costs of, alternative financing) resulting from a proven statutory violation, but also specified that if actual damages do not exceed a minimum amount of damages based on a formula contained in the statute, the debtor is entitled to recover the statutory minimum amount of damages.

Indian Harbor denied coverage for the settlement of the claim, contending that statutory damages constituted a “penalty” and, therefore, were not “loss” under the policy, which specified that “loss” does not include “fines, penalties or taxes imposed by law.”  The trial court agreed with Indian Harbor and held that Indian Harbor was not obligated to provide coverage for the settlement.

The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the insured’s settlement payment was not a penalty because it was paid to the class rather than to the government.  In so ruling, the court applied the canon of policy construction known as noscitur a sociis, which applies where a word in a group of words has multiple meanings, and requires that the meaning of each word in the group is consistent with the meaning of its companion words.  Because the term “penalties” was grouped with the words “fines” and “taxes,” both of which are payments to the government, the court held that “penalties” similarly only includes payments made to the government. 

© 2013 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

About the Author

Seth D. Lamden concentrates his practice on representing corporate and individual policyholders in coverage disputes with their insurers. In addition to dispute resolution, Seth counsels clients on matters relating to insurance and risk management, including maximizing insurance recovery for lawsuits and property damage, policy audits and procurement, and drafting contractual insurance specifications and indemnity agreements.

Seth has successfully represented policyholders in coverage disputes against domestic, London market and Bermuda insurers arising from a broad array of claims...

(312) 269-8052.

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.