The publication Legal Intelligencer poses the hypothetical question quite directly, to wit: As either an insured party or insurance company that has tried unsuccessfully to resolve a legal matter via nonbinding mediation, is it now better to seek resolution through binding arbitration or in a court of law?
If you're involved in an insurance-related dispute in Colorado or elsewhere across the country (either as an insurer or insured), what is the more preferable process for you to invoke to resolve your challenge -- arbitration or formal adversarialism under the oversight of a judge?
While most people would like to assume that every aspect of a building's construction is executed perfectly, this isn't always the case. For example, a roof located in Breckenridge recently collapsed. Of course, this is a scary situation because there is the potential for people to develop injuries as a result of any roof collapse.
As noted in a Colorado publication earlier this month, state lawmakers "have tried and narrowly failed for years" to craft compromise legislation that would satisfy customarily opposed interests regarding an important business matter.
It's a fair question: If an insurance company is found to have breached its contractual duty to defend a case against an insured party, but hasn't acted in bad faith in doing so (in other words, it made a conscientious decision to deny coverage in good faith), is its liability capped by policy limits plus defense costs?