Timothy Larsen is a member of Robinson+Cole’s Insurance + Reinsurance Group. He focuses his practice on liability and property insurance coverage matters as well as complex insurance and reinsurance issues.
Prior to joining Robinson+Cole, Mr. Larsen was a certified legal intern in the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice, Danbury Judicial District, where he assisted with cases involving insurance fraud, assault, murder, and larceny. He was also a summer associate at Robinson+Cole. While attending law school, Mr. Larsen served as articles editor of the Connecticut Law Review and represented clients as a member of the University of Connecticut’s Intellectual Property Clinic.
Under New Jersey law, an insurer cannot be held liable for bad faith in denying an insurance claim if the claim is “fairly debatable.” Therefore, unless a plaintiff can establish a right to summary judgment on the underlying cause of action for breach of contract, the coverage denial is considered “fairly debatable” and the court … Continue Reading
Property insurance policies typically require that the insured repair or replace damaged property before recovering on a replacement cost value (RCV) basis. Until then, the insured is entitled only to the actual cash value (ACV) of the damaged property. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently decided a case involving the … Continue Reading
Insurers retain outside counsel during claim investigations for a variety of reasons, including, among others, providing coverage advice, assisting in reviewing and responding to communications with insureds that have legal implications, and providing settlement recommendations. When coverage disputes arise, policyholders often seek the production of these pre-suit communications, arguing that outside counsel was merely performing … Continue Reading
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut recently reaffirmed its ruling that the term “collapse,” as defined by a homeowners insurance policy, is unambiguous and that the policy in question did not provide coverage for the alleged “cracking” and/or “bulging” of the insureds’ foundation walls. In Alexander v. Gen. Ins. Co. of … Continue Reading