BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
In In Re: XL Specialty Insurance Co. and Cambridge Integrated Services Group Inc., an outside counsel for XL shared information about a workers comp claim with Cambridge, which was XL's adjuster, and the employer. The employee sued, alleging bad-faith negotiations, and sought communications between XL's lawyer, XL and Cambridge. XL and Cambridge argued that attorney-client privilege should prevent sharing their communications. But the Texas high court ruled in part that such privilege exists only when information is shared between lawyers for each party.
In American Zurich Insurance Co. v. Montana 13th Judicial District Court et al., a third-party adjuster shared a legal opinion and evaluation of a claim by Zurich's defense attorney with an employer. The worker later requested access to documentation, but his employer sought to quash the subpoena based on attorney-client privilege. The Montana high court ruled the company did not share a common legal interest with Zurich based on the workers comp exclusive remedy provision.
Employers in Texas and Montana are expected to seek a legislative fix for state Supreme Court rulings that have restricted employers' access to legal information in some workers compensation cases.