Source: http://ecdefensenetwork.org/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:34:38+00:00

Document:
We are a network of law firms who practice almost exclusively in the area of bad faith. Our vision is to unite law firms and individuals within those firms who are nationally recognized and specialize in defending and advising nationally and regionally-based insurance carriers.
All firms and individuals have been vetted and demonstrated robust practice and specialties that serve the insurance industry. Firms are admitted by invitation only and have been vetted through a rigorous review process. Members must subscribe to a high level of service standards and are continuously evaluated to ensure these standards of quality and experience are met. This network is truly a partnership with the insurance industry so that firms and carriers can work with one another, help one another and benefit from the relationship with one another.
Have access to a variety of experts. Review their CVs and read reviews about the work they do.
The EC Defense Network is make up of law firms and their members who practice almost exclusively in the areas of bad faith and coverage defense of insurance carriers. As a member of the EC Defense Network, firms strengthen their partnership between lawyers who represent the insurance industry and national and regional insurance carriers for whom they provide services. This exclusive group of experts provide the best, most effective work in extra coverage.
On February 23, 2016, Judge Stanley A. Bastian for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington rendered a potentially important decision on how insurance bad faith claims that may otherwise be time barred by the three-year statute of limitations may survive under Washington’s four-year statute of limitations for Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claims.
In Taylor v. Allstate Ins. Group and Allstate Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22065, the Court had previously granted the insurers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the policyholder’s contractual-based claims because the lawsuit was not filed until after the one-year suit limitation provision in the insurance contract. On the insurer’s subsequent motion for dismissal of the remaining extra-contractual claims, the Court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment regarding the insurer’s claims under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) and insurance bad faith, both of which have three-year statute of limitations. Citing to Moraitti ex rel. Tarutis v. Famers Ins. Co. of Wash., 162 Wn. App. 495, 502 (2011), the Court found that the insured submitted no evidence of conduct that violated IFCA or constituted insurance bad faith that occurred within three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
However, the Court found that the insured had submitted evidence pertinent to a possible a CPA violation within the four-year statute of limitations. The Court also found that because a bad faith claim could be predicated on a CPA claim under Salois v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 90 Wn.2d. 355, 359 (1978), the insured may be able to pursue the insurance bad faith claim despite the fact that it would be otherwise barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
The Court stopped short of ruling that the bad faith claims in that case could survive while finding that “ruling on the merits of those issues is beyond the scope of this order.” However, this is a significant ruling as it could allow policyholders to boot-strap bad faith claims that would otherwise be barred by the three-year statute of limitations to CPA claims that may survive a statute of limitations defense.
Very few developments in Washington insurance law have received more attention over the past five years than the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Sedell v. Farmers Ins. Co., 176 Wn.2d. 686, 295 P.2d 239 (2013). On February 25, 2016, Judge Ronald B. Leighton in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington entered an order in Linder v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 289, in which the Court granted in part and denied in part a motion for protective order filed by the insurer regarding certain documents and communications between lawyers for the insurer and their client under Sedell.
In the Linder case, the Court held that the communications between the attorneys at one of the four law firms that communicated with the insurer must be produced under Sedell because they were performing “quasi-fiduciary tasks.” However, communications between the other three law firms and the insurer need not be produced because they were not performing such tasks and there was no showing that the civil fraud exception applied. The Court also found that certain legal invoices and billing statements that contained privileged descriptions of its legal work revealed the motive of the client, litigation strategy, and/or the specific nature of the services provided such as researching particular areas of law. The Court found that these documents were protected under the attorney-client privilege citing to Clarke v. Am. Commerce Nat’l Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 109 (9th Cir.) (1992).
While the Court in Linder did not announce a new development in the law following Sedell, it is important for insurers operating in Washington to recognize how Washington Courts are interpreting and applying Sedell in various contexts.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.