On Feb 7, 8:39 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 7:46 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:



Wick wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:
1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Did the board majority authorize a discussion / conversation with the
insurance company to purposely try to persuade the insurance company to
drop the coverage for Paul and me? Is this legal or ethical? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?
The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?
BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance company is obligated to defend.

The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

Correct. Also, the insurance company may have a claim against the insured.

really? what part of the policy give the insurance company the right
to sue the insured? Please show me?

Rob:

An insurance contract is just like any other contract. If one party
breaches the contract, the other one has the right to sue for any
damages resulting from the breach.

An insurance contract, like any other contract, need not contain any
language giving either party the right to sue. Either party has the
right to sue given to it by law.

Wick

The Historian wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:46 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Wick wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:
1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Did the board majority authorize a discussion / conversation with the
insurance company to purposely try to persuade the insurance company to
drop the coverage for Paul and me? Is this legal or ethical? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?
The insurance company cannot drop coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?
BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance company is obligated to defend.
The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.
Wick Deer
Correct. Also, the insurance company may have a claim against the insured.

This would be in a situation, just to speak hypothetically, where a
person on a board of a not-for-profit signs a statement he didn't
commit identity theft, and then it emerges he did just that. If the
insurer suffers a loss defending such a bad-faith claim, they may sue
their insured. Correct?

Correct.

On Feb 7, 9:29 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Feb 7, 9:41 pm, Rob wrote:



On Feb 7, 6:50 pm, Wick wrote:

On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:

On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:

1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did the board majority authorize a discussion / conversation with the
insurance company to purposely try to persuade the insurance company to
drop the coverage for Paul and me? Is this legal or ethical? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?

The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?

BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The insurance company is obligated to defend.

The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

It could? Anything is possible, not probable though.

http://www.dcba.org/brief/janissue/2001/art30101.htm

In short, your link showed the insurer simply said it was unable to
defend. Not the insurer sues the defendant. An unlikely situation.