Napa E&0 coverage not good

[Bear Munro]

NAPA E& O coverage not good. I've had E&0 coverage for years thru Mercer, Calsurance and others. last two years used NAPA. Well, I had a frivolous claim against our company because John Hancock tried to weasel out of paying a widow 250K death benefit. National Casualty used by Napa refused to defend me. My daughter who actually wrote the case was defended immediately by Calsurance. I have found Napa's carrier Nationwide and National Casualty to be disingenuous and cheap.

 

[Markthebroker]

Really? A company that advertises rock bottom cheap insurance with a dude in a cape and fast online binding isn't solid?

The hell you say.

 

[DayTimer]

O

National Casualty used by Napa refused to defend me.

On what basis did the decline to defend you? I thought that was the purpose of E&O.

 

[Markthebroker]

O


On what basis did the decline to defend you? I thought that was the purpose of E&O.

On the basis they sell cheap fast insurance using a guy in a cape as their mascot. Cmon.

 

[Bear Munro]

After a 3 week delay in reviewing my claim, they said they would not defend because the claim was reported after the policy anniversary. Which it was but I renewed the policy and had seamless coverage. The thing that irks me is that these vermin seemed to purposely stall hoping I wouldn't reply to the suit or get an extension and therefore admit culpability. All I can say is I've gotten shoddy unprofessional treatment from NAPA's carriers. My daughter, on the other hand, was immediately represented by her E&O company even though she hasn't had a policy in force for two years.

 

[DayTimer]

After a 3 week delay in reviewing my claim, they said they would not defend because the claim was reported after the policy anniversary.

Again, this makes no sense. Which ever insurer had contractually obligated itself to cover the risk is the responsible insurer for any loss or claim that occurred as a result of actions taken during the coverage period. Am I wrong? So you had to hire your own counsel to defend the suit?

This interests me greatly as I do have my coverage through NAPA.

 

[goillini52]

Again, this makes no sense. Which ever insurer had contractually obligated itself to cover the risk is the responsible insurer for any loss or claim that occurred as a result of actions taken during the coverage period. Am I wrong? So you had to hire your own counsel to defend the suit?

This interests me greatly as I do have my coverage through NAPA.

The E & O insurance isn't WITH NAPA, it's bought THROUGH NAPA. Several carriers are offered THROUGH NAPA. I also have my E &O through NAPA. Mine is with BCS in association with Equitable through NAPA.

Just like when you buy through AARP. You don't have insurance with AARP....you have it with UHC, New York Life, etc.

This was really aimed at Bear.

 

[VolAgent]

After a 3 week delay in reviewing my claim, they said they would not defend because the claim was reported after the policy anniversary. Which it was but I renewed the policy and had seamless coverage. The thing that irks me is that these vermin seemed to purposely stall hoping I wouldn't reply to the suit or get an extension and therefore admit culpability. All I can say is I've gotten shoddy unprofessional treatment from NAPA's carriers. My daughter, on the other hand, was immediately represented by her E&O company even though she hasn't had a policy in force for two years.

I get the feeling there is a LOT more to this story.

1. When was the claim made?
2. When was it reported?
3. When did your policy expire?
4. Was it renewed or new coverage bought?
5. If so, was it retro and did you ensure there was no gap for retro to apply?

 

[Bear Munro]

You may get a lot of feelings but singing an old Morris Albert song is not pertinent. Sorry, I know you're looking to defend but in my case, the policy never expired! NO GAPS... In fact, it is still in force! Don't worry though you won't have to defend the carrier, they are the ones that need to defend against this and the State Insurance Commissioners Office has been notified. Also, I may have discovered another problem. I bought my policy through the National Ethics Association which I've been a member of for years. Come to find out that just a few months ago they merged with you guessed it "NAPA". So calling them got no sympathetic ear. It's not agents and brokers that are their prime concern now, it's pushing E&O insurance for carriers. Take my advice use and use another company. The lawyers I have talked to are shocked. They state, even if Napa representing National Casualty wanted to balk at liability they still should have performed to defend.

 

[Bear Munro]

You said...."Again, this makes no sense. Whatsoever insurer had contractually obligated itself to cover the risk is the responsible insurer for any loss or claim that occurred as a result of actions taken during the coverage period. Am I wrong? So you had to hire your own counsel to defend the suit? This interests me greatly as I do have my coverage through NAPA."

You are right it makes no sense at all and that's what my attorneys are saying. They are contractually bound to at least defend but so far they have not. So, yes I will have to hire and pay for my own attorney's. After paying probably 50k in premiums over the years NAPA's Nationwide, National Casualty insurance company has decided to ignore on their obligations