A Lawyer is not a Super Adjuster
Barry Zalma
Aug 9, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gUuydwgC and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDfjAr75 and at https://lnkd.in/g23T5k8c and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4550 posts.
NY USDC Eliminates Insurer’s Attorney Client Privilege
I became a lawyer in 1972. Before that I was an insurance adjuster and investigator. Since 1972 I have never been, nor acted as, an adjuster or an investigator. Of course, part of being a lawyer requires some investigation because failing to do so would be a breach of the fiduciary duty of a lawyer to his or her client.
I learned immediately upon entering law school, and later in the practice of law, that an attorney’s failure to investigate potential defenses constitutes a denial of effective assistance of counsel. [Owsley v. Peyton, 368 F.2d 1002, 1003 (4th Cir. 1966); Kibert v. Peyton, 383 F.2d 566, 569 (4th Cir. 1967); McLaughlin v. Royster, 346 F.Supp. 297 (E.D.Va.1972); Cf. Caudill v. Peyton, 368 F.2d 563 (4th Cir. 1966); Wood v. Zahradnick, 430 F.Supp. 107 (E.D. Va. 1977). In fact, as the Supreme Court of Oregon stated: “To fulfill the role assigned to defense counsel under our adversarial system of criminal justice, a lawyer must investigate the facts and inform himself or herself with respect to the law ‘to the extent appropriate to the nature and complexity of the case[.]’ Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or. 867, 875, 627 P.2d 458 (1981),” [Burdge v. Palmateer, 338 Or. 490, 112 P.3d 320 (Or. 2005)]
The attorney-client privilege protects the client from disclosure of private communications with counsel. Communications from a lawyer to his client conveying legal advice and giving information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice is always privileged. [Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981); M&T Bank Corp. v. State Nat’l Ins. Co. (W.D. N.Y. 2020). The investigation conducted by a lawyer as part of his or her duty to properly represent a client is the work of a lawyer and is, and should always be, protected by the attorney client privilege and the work product protection.
Some Privileges are More Equal Than Others
With regard to insurance matters some courts have ignored the duties owed by a lawyer to the client and have eliminated the attorney client privilege and the work product protection for most documents created by those lawyers who provide advice to insurers. For most of the more than 45 years I have been involved providing legal advice to insurers I have been accused of being a “super adjuster” rather than a lawyer to allow insureds to gain an advantage against an insurer, and gain access to the private legal advice given to the represented insurer. The attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer, and can be waived by the client but not eliminated.
In Cadaret Grant & Co. v. Great American Insurance Company, No. CV 21-6665 (GRB)(AYS), United States District Court, E.D. New York (July 25, 2023) the USDC decided to compel an insurer to produce documents that include the legal advice provided by a lawyer to an insurer since it concluded that the lawyer involved with the requested documents was acting as an investigator or adjuster rather than as a lawyer.
The documents at issue revealed that as early as April of 2019, GAIC had retained outside counsel Graziano to discuss claims under the Bond. The USDC outlined the issue before it as follows: “New York courts are often faced with deciding claims of attorney-client privilege in the context of insurance coverage disputes. Central to such privilege decisions is the issue of whether outside counsel is performing the role of a claims investigator, or that of an attorney offering legal advice. Documents reflecting claims investigation activities are subject to discovery even if those activities were performed by an attorney.”
The Work Product Doctrine
The work product protection is the lawyer’s, unlike the attorney client privilege that applies to the client. Protection does not exist for documents that are prepared in the ordinary course of business or that would have been created in essentially similar form irrespective of the litigation.
The Decision
The Cadaret Grant & Co court refused to provide the attorney client privilege to documents created by the lawyer except a document that showed the lawyer, Graziano’s, legal analysis and opinions. It contains legal advice and the court concluded is therefore primarily legal, rather than investigatory in nature. It, and only it, was determined to covered by the attorney client privilege. The court was wrong and should be reversed if the insurer is able to seek appellate relief.
ZALMA OPINION
A lawyer giving legal advice to an insurer faced with a claim is required, to properly serve his or her client, to conduct a thorough legal investigation into the issues presented by the insurer for assistance and legal advice. That advice can include many different things, including suggestions for continuing investigation by the insurer, but none changes the lawyer into an investigator or a claims adjuster. Had counsel sat silent and only wrote a coverage opinion without using his or her skill, legal knowledge and training to obtain, directly or by asking for additional information, to prepare the coverage opinion that the court found was privileged but all other documents were not, is in error.
The Cadaret opinion is an insult to the lawyer who acted as a coverage lawyer. The lawyer needed to obtain sufficient information from the insurer client so that he or she could provide a thorough, well-reasoned and researched coverage opinion that was not within the ken of the insurance adjuster who had enough knowledge and experience to recognize that he or she needed the assistance and legal analysis of an experienced insurance coverage lawyer. The “super adjuster” theory that no investigative work of a lawyer can be part of the lawyer’s analysis that is protected by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product protection is simply in error and a false conclusion.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.comhttps://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg;
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library\
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
