Situation: Medium-sized architectural firm was confronted with significant litigation for the first time in the firm’s history.  The primarily culpable party was a recalcitrant sub-consultant.  The client, with whom the architectural firm wanted to restore confidence, then filed suit due to the impasse.  The insurer assigned suboptimal defense counsel based on the needs of the architectural firm and the facts of the case.  Insurer maintains the right to choose counsel under these circumstances and was unwilling to incur the costs to switch representation.

MGW Response: As attorney-brokers, MGW brought a unique combination of legal perspective and insurance insight to facilitate an optimal resolution for both client and insurer.  MGW quickly assessed that the insurer-selected counsel was ill-suited for the case, with the attorney’s encouraging the litigation process rather than adopting affirmative measure to bring a quick and cost effective resolution.  Based on their experience as A&E claim counsel, MGW recommended several specialized attorneys whose skill sets would better match the needs of their architectural firm client.  The client-preferred attorney was rejected by the insurer because she was not pre-approved by the insurer and was, in fact, more expensive than the insurer-selected attorney.  MGW then facilitated dialogue with the insurer and, ultimately, the underwriters to advocate on behalf of their client, the client’s preferred attorney, and the insurance process which is best served when counsel assignment is not coerced.

MGW’s legal and insurance experience and their ability to create mutually beneficial situations for clients and insurers enabled the architectural firm to ultimately resolve this case to everyone’s satisfaction.