It's lawyers all the way down as lawyers representing the lawyers who represented Alan Dershowitz in Epstein-related cases sue insurers for not fully reimbursing them
Two law firms that represented former Cambridge resident Alan Dershowitz in legal actions stemming from his relationship with dead molester Jeffrey Epstein today sued three insurers with whom Dershowitz had policies to cover such things, charging the insurers failed to fully reimburse them for their work despite initially agreeing to.
In a lawsuit filed today in Suffolk Superior Court, lawyers at Foley Hoag in the Seaport - representing lawyers at Todd & Weld downtown and lawyers at a New York law firm - charge that the three insurers owe their clients a total of $1.303,956.27 in unreimbursed work and expenses representing Dershowitz in cases involving his work for and relationship with Epstein - one involving a woman who initially said she was a victim of both men, another involving a defamation lawsuit brought by her lawyer, also well known on the national legal circuit if not on the Vineyard (details of both cases are in the complaint).
The lawsuit alleges that Homesite Insurance Co. of New York, Continental Casualty Co. of Chicago and the Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Assn. of Boston all agreed to pay for Dershowitz's defense against the lawsuits and that they agreed to Dershowitz's choice of law firms to represent him. One of the policies was specifically for legal liability; the other two were homeowner's policies for his homes on Martha's Vineyard and Manhattan which had clauses related to such claims.
The lawsuit actually seeks double or treble damages, under the Massachusetts law that prohibits "the use or employment of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce." The law firms say the insurers knew what they were doing and by slowing or withholding timely payments made it harder for them to defend Dershowitz - something they said they still managed to do and got settlements that did not involve large payments, which they say you think the insurance companies would appreciate since otherwise they'd be on the hook for those, too.
According to the suit, even as they paid for some of the expenses, the insurers did so so slowly that that caused problems for the firms - one suddenly found itself locked out of case information stored by a data-warehouse firm that grew tired of waiting for payment, the suit alleges. And now, the suit continues, the insurers are simply ignoring repeated requests for payment from the two law firms.
Embarrassingly for the now emeritus professor at Harvard Law School:
Homesite has also failed to reimburse Professor Dershowitz's former employer, Harvard University, for its share of costs incurred by Harvard in reviewing certain emails sent from, or received by, Professor Dershowitz at his Harvard University email account prior to their production. Homesite's share, which amounts to $52,035.09, has remained unpaid for over six months despite a court order in the Giuffre Action requiring Professor Dershowitz to reimburse Harvard those costs, and despite Homesite's explicit agreement to do so. Homesite has not offered any explanation as to why, despite having agreed to pay those costs, it has failed to do so, and instead continues to recklessly disregard the legitimate interests of its insured.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
rough time for the Dersh
Today also brings the news that he's been sanctioned by a federal judge in Arizona over his filing in the Kari Lake election complaint.
Story notes he says he's had three strokes. At 84 maybe it's time to retire. A fall from the heights like so many in recent years.
retired Judge Paul Mahoney might be having a laugh now
Rich people problems. I can
Rich people problems. I can't relate.
Root for the lawyers? Or maybe insurance companies?
MPIUA is the insurer of last
MPIUA is the insurer of last resort in MA. It is the default policy underwriter for most coastal communities, because for-profit underwriters wont touch the rising tides. It is one of those quasi-public agencies, and should be self-funded, but if they take a hit in the pocketbook, I think its the taxpayers of the Commonwealth that will ultimately feel the burden.
I didn't know that MPIUA covered coastal properties, although that makes sense. We had our property insurance through them for several years, after our original insurer first paid out only a fraction of our claim for damages from a roof leak after a blizzard and then abruptly canceled our policy, basically for having had the temerity to place a claim.
Well you have to understand,
Well you have to understand, if they pay a claim, that means they have less money. Obviously that can't be allowed.
It is a consortium. Not in any way a public agency.
MPIUA was created by public law. The companies that provide coverage are a consortium of private insurance companies. The Commonwealth would not be on the hook for claims.
I think I see what to do. Get
I think I see what to do. Get all these lawyers around a table negotiating, then weld steel plates over all exits.