1E9Ct5D

or project-specific policies to supplement limits, and generally whether damages causedby your work might not be covered. If the company later faces catastrophic litigation,these proactive efforts will pay obvious dividends.Some companies tactically obtain lower levels of insurance, higher deductibles, or mighteven “go bare” so as to present less of a target to future claimants. This choice mightwork out sometimes, but it is enormously risky and is not recommended.Catastrophic litigation is expensive. All too often outside counsel are presented withdefensible cases, but are hamstrung by a lack of resources with which to zealouslydefend the case. In the mine case discussed above, Company X maintained only a $2million professional liability policy with eroding limits. It had not substantively reviewedits insurance needs for several years, nor had the owner requested higher limits.Company X had no other insurance for its professional services. Initial settlementdemands exceeded $100 million. Counsel simply could not mount a thorough, effectivedefense through trial without exhausting most of the limits, and this would havesignificantly harmed Company X’s ability to stay in business.The “reality” Company X faced – insufficient insurance limits v. exorbitant damages –impacted all of the defense decisions and limited Company X’s ability to hire experts, e-discovery vendors, and other consultants. No company wants to be economicallyhamstrung when facing catastrophic litigation.Moreover, sometimes higher-tier parties will focus more on the insurance obtained bytheir lower-tier counterparts, rather than taking a careful look at their own portfolios.