Ty – I wanted to thank you again for your assistance with the trial this week. It was a good team and you did a great job with your testimony. I loved working with you!
Senior Associate General Counsel
$20B publicly traded biotech company
We are pleased to to report that our firm has concluded that Ty Sagalow was our most helpful expert witness in our successful $8.7 million policyholder victory against the insurer of our client, Illinois Agricultural Association.
Our client sought insurance coverage under a management protection policy for an arbitration award entered in favor of former insurance agents. Defendant insurance company denied coverage, without considering all coverages in the policy.
On summary judgment, the court held that the arbitration award was covered by the policy. The court awarded $7 million, plus interest totaling $8,666,293. Thank-you Ty for your expert services to us and our client.
For almost 25 years, I have worked closely with Ty. First as a colleague at AIG and Zurich, and currently as a client of Innovation Insurance Group. Put simply, Ty is the best product development expert in the commercial insurance industry.
In addition to being a fine lawyer, he is also, in my opinion, one of the foremost experts in D&O insurance as well as network security insurance, which he largely invented as a product.
At AIG, Ty and I worked together on many high profile D&O deals. When I was President of AIG Small Business, I hired Ty and his team to develop our new products. When I moved to Zurich, I recommended Ty for the new company position of Chief Innovation Officer and today, as President of Navigators Management Company, we have hired Innovation Insurance Group to help with our new product needs in the management and professional liability space. Ty is one of a kind.
Ty, your CLE session today for our Jones, Day attorneys was extremely well received. Among the comments we got were:
- Great CLE- Immediately applicable information for any attorney (all 5s)
- Very knowledgeable presenter! (all 5s)
- Great Presentation! (all 5s)
IMS Expert Services
Note: Presentation available upon request.
Ty, just received the below from the carrier:
By letter dated September 11, 2016, [Carrier] informed [Insured] that it was unable to find coverage for the Counterclaims under the E&O Policy for the reasons discussed in detail therein. [Carrier] reiterated its declination of coverage by letter dated January 13, 2017. By email dated February 8, 2017, you again challenged [Carrier] declination of coverage, attaching a letter from Innovation Insurance Group. [Carrier] has closely reviewed the additional information provided, and … will provide a defense to [Insured]
THANK-YOU, THANK-YOU, THANK-YOU!!
Johathan Marc Davidoff
Davidoff Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
I have known Ty for over 20 years both as a colleague and a good friend. We have worked side by side on many projects both at AIG and at Zurich. Ty possesses the greatest attributes of a chief underwriting officer, chief innovation officer and general counsel all rolled into one. He is a great leader who has the unique ability to take an idea and translate into reality providing new revenue streams for any company fortunate enough to hire him. He has my highest recommendation.
Ty, Thanks again for the expert declaration. Great job! Really enjoyed this project with you. Most appreciated.
California Policyholder Law Firm
The Federal District Court was asked to rule on reasonableness of the Mr. Sagalow’s fees. In a decision taking into consideration 5 factors (the witness’s area of expertise, education and training, prevailing rates for other comparable experts, nature and complexity of the responses, fees traditional charged by the expert on related matters and cost of living in particular geographic area), the Court held in favor of Mr. Sagalow’s fees ($700/hr), reasoning as follows:
[In this case, counsel representing the party seeking Mr. Sagalow’s expert deposition has argued] that Sagalow’s fees are “unreasonable” and that “Sagalow’s unreasonable fee schedule should be reduced to an amount consistent with the hourly rates charged by other expert witnesses designated in this case… and that his preparation time be limited to ½ of his deposition time”. For a fee to be reasonable, ‘there must be some reasonable relationship between the services rendered and the remuneration to which the expert is entitled.” (Decision at pages 1,2)
Applying the  factors in this case, the court notes that Mr. Sagalow is a graduate of Georgetown University and subsequently received an L.L.M from New York University School of Law. He also practices law and held numerous positions in the insurance industry, such as chief underwriter for two large insurance companies, as well as serving as general counsel for AIG Insurance and National Union Insurance Company.’ (Decision at page 3)
Having applied the factors to this matter, the court holds that Sagalow’s hourly rate is not unreasonable and [opposing party] shall compensate Sagalow at this rate, $700/hr, for the time he actually spends attending the deposition. Furthermore, the courts holds that [opposing party] shall also be liable for Sagalow’s preparation time, if any, provided that such time is reasonable.” (Decision at page 4)
Though Sagalow’s hourly rate was found reasonable under the factors discussed, the court would point out that this is not a case where one party’s expert was billing the opposing part at an inflated rate. Rather [the party retaining Sagalow] has been paying Sagalow $700.00 hourly rate since he was first retained as an expert. Therefore, fairness dictates that [opposing party] should not be allowed to benefit from [retaining party’s] discovery at a discounted price.” (Decision at pages 4-5)
Note: Travel time was not an issue in this case.
For a copy of the full decision, click here.
David a. Sanders
United States District Court
Northern District of Mississippi
September 5, 2015
Case Settled! And deal expanded into something even bigger for client! Your work was very helpful in bringing out this result.
Mid-size East Coast Law Firm
Ty, I have no doubt your report was instrumental in moving the defendant up in the zone of reasonable settlement. They initiated these discussions [right] after getting your report. Thank-you.
Major International Law Firm