Theodore A. Keyes

July 10, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that the development of case law governing bad faith claims is of paramount importance to insurance companies and to insureds because a bad faith claim is typically the only means by which an insured can recover an amount in excess of the policy limits from the insurer.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

April 17, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, review a recent Southern District decision that reminds insurers that, despite the rule allowing them to deny coverage where the insured fails to provide timely notice of claim, even in the absence of prejudice, they cannot afford to be careless in their assessment and reservation of rights regarding the timeliness of notice.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

June 30, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm write that across the spectrum of different insurance products � from life insurance to fire insurance to homeowners' insurance to directors' and officers' insurance � a constant in the underwriting process is the use of information provided in the application as a means to calculate risk.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

March 02, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, review a ruling from Maine's highest court which may provide a preview as to how a New York Court would rule in a situation where an insurer agrees to defend a case, subject to a reservation of rights, and the insured and the claimant then settle.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read

April 19, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, analyze a that decision seems to have put to rest any notion that the New York Court of Appeals was contemplating a departure from the traditional no-prejudice rule.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

8 minute read

January 02, 2009 | New York Law Journal

write that in just about two weeks, New York will join the majority of states and impose upon insurance companies the obligation to demonstrate prejudice as a condition to denying coverage based on late notice of a claim. This is a significant departure for New York, they note, which has long been aligned with the minority of states that strictly enforce timely notice requirements without regard to the existence of prejudice.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

10 minute read

July 01, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at Schulte Roth & Zabel, write about how insurance companies have responded to a growing demand for coverage and services.

By Howard B. Epstein And Theodore A. Keyes

9 minute read

August 18, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Corporate Insurance Law column, Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that after the initial wave of insurance claims are resolved, there is likely to be a second wave consisting of subrogation claims, as insurers seek to recover amounts paid to their insureds from the responsible parties.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

12 minute read

February 22, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that, in a split decision contrary to the traditional rule, the First Department held that, in order to disclaim, an insurer was required to show prejudice based on the insured's four-month delay in providing notice.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

10 minute read

August 24, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Howard B. Epstein, a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Theodore A. Keyes, special counsel at the firm, write that where a lawsuit against a company and/or its directors and officers includes both covered and noncovered claims or alleges claims against both insured and uninsured parties, unless the policy contains a duty to defend, the carrier is usually responsible for only those costs associated with covered claims and parties.

By Howard B. Epstein and Theodore A. Keyes

11 minute read