[ad_1]
Harvard, in light of the Supreme Court’s defeat, won’t get any help with its legal fees.
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Harvard’s insurer is not responsible for paying the University’s legal fees in an anti-school lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court on Monday.
Harvard sued its insurer, the Zurich American Insurance Company, in September 2021, arguing that the firm’s failure to pay its legal fees breached the contract between the two parties. .
But on Wednesday, Judge Allison D. Burroughs sided with the insurance industry, rejecting Harvard’s argument that it should not have notified the company of its Students For Fair Admissions lawsuit. The decision forces the school to pay the costs incurred during the eight years of litigation in the case.
In 2014, Harvard purchased two insurance policies: one with American International Group that covered its first $25 million in legal fees and a second additional policy with Zurich that provided additional coverage to the $15 million.
Zurich argued in legal documents that its policy would only be effective if Harvard notified the firm within 90 days of the first policy reaching its cap. But the University failed to issue a notice until May 2017 — 17 months after its deadline.
Harvard admitted in documents that it did not send an official notice to Zurich until May 2017, but lawyers for the school argued that because its lawsuit with the SFFA was so comprehensive, the institution should have known policy comes in – and it changes. , must be paid.
Burroughs, who in 2020 ruled for Harvard after a three-week district court hearing in the SFFA case, dismissed the school’s arguments in the Zurich case on Wednesday.
In a four-page ruling, he wrote that “it is undisputed that Harvard first filed the relevant claim with Zurich on May 23, 2017, well past the deadline.”
“Massachusetts law is clear that (1) the terms of the insurance policy must be fully enforced and (2) the insured’s failure to provide notice of the claim-bound corporation,” it says. Burroughs wrote.
Rebutting Harvard’s main argument that Zurich should pay the University’s legal fees since it knew about the SFFA lawsuit, Burroughs wrote that “the plaintiff’s actual knowledge of the claim” is not ” enough notice to trigger coverage obligations under that policy.”
“It is therefore clear that Zurich’s lack of discrimination, fraud, or actual knowledge does not change Harvard’s obligation to provide notices in accordance with the provisions of the Policy,” wrote each.
Spokesmen for Zurich and Harvard declined to comment on the decision.
—Author Rahem D. Hamid can be reached at rahem.hamid@thecrimson.com.
—Author Nia L. Orakwue can be reached at nia.orakwue@thecrimson.com.
[ad_2]
Source link
