Insights

Deutsch Kerrigan Article /

Pick Me, Pick Me!’ Insurance Insiders Tell How They Hire Lawyers: Insight into a Claims Handler’s Mind

October 31, 2017

Melissa Lessell

share this page

To thrive at a large legal malpractice defense firm, lawyers need to do more than simply be good advocates—they need to develop their own books of business. And that means developing good relationships with insurance claims adjusters.

To wrap up the series, The panel at the ABA Fall 2017 National Legal Malpractice Conference comprised of Scott Barabash, vice president of professional liability claims at Aspen Insurance, Matt Borrillo, senior claims attorney for the Oregon State Bar Professional Liability Fund, and rain-maker defense attorney, Meredith Kaplan Stoma, a partner at Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn share what they are looking for from panel counsel.

Insight into a Claims Handler’s Mind

Barabash and Borrillo also provided insight into what exactly they are looking for from counsel when handling a case, since ‘‘doing a good job, in the right way, will pay dividends.’’

Accuracy and promptness were two key factors for Borrillo, who said that when something happens in his case, he wants to know. By accuracy, Borrillo said he means that a lawyer knows what she is talking about, not necessarily that she believes they are going to win. He also likes counsel to be straightforward—it’s ok to say ‘‘I don’t know’’ if there is not sufficient information developed in a case yet.

Borrillo said he needs attorneys to be accurate an prompt in their reporting, so that he can analyze the risk associated with the case at any given point. Insurance companies seek to manage risk. His work gets rolled up into a general forecast on the risk, which then gets passed on to the reinsurers, the board of directors, and the board of governors. He told the panel to err on the side of over-reporting and to avoid having the carrier ask for an update.

Barabash further echoed the importance of reporting promptly when situations change, explaining that ‘‘[we] expect bad news, we just don’t like to get bad news on the eve of trial when the information has been out there for a while.’’ Barabash further explained that he does not mind when a lawyer changes his mind in terms of an evaluation of the file, as long as it is based on something substantive.

Barabash and Borrillo disagreed as to how they wanted their individual cases to be evaluated. Barabash likes his lawyers to provide him with percentages and estimates for verdict and settlement value, but acknowledged that the numbers given to him by a lawyer aren’t definitive, since he does his own analysis. Borrillo, on the other hand, stated that he does not like it when lawyers provide percentages of success or decision tree analyses and is fine with generalities. The differences in opinion between these two insurance professionals highlighted one theme from the panel: the need for lawyers to really get to know the carriers with whom they work in order to learn and know their respective preferences.

Stoma said that from her perspective, it is important to make the adjuster’s workload easier. Always provide timely updates and follow up a report with a call.

Barabash added that the adjuster is a lawyer’s connection to the company. The lawyer should strive to make the adjuster look good, should never throw them under the bus and avoid going over the adjuster’s head except in the most extreme of circumstances.

Stoma said it’s important, in the insurance defense context, to manage the tri-partite relationship. She stressed that it is important to know when to step aside and focus on the defense of the case and let the carrier and client work out any coverage issues among themselves.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Accuracy
  2. Promptness
  3. Make adjuster look good and workload easier
  4. Manage Tri-partite relationship

Firm Highlights

  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.
  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.
  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims

  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • News

    44 Deutsch Kerrigan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® in 2027 Edition, Including Two “Lawyer of the Year” Honorees

    Deutsch Kerrigan proudly announces that 44 of our attorneys have been recognized by their peers in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This year, 34 Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were named to The Best Lawyers in America®, with an additional 10 attorneys recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. In addition, John Jerry Glas and Kelly E. Theard were each named “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practice areas—an honor awarded to only one attorney per practice area in each region. John Jerry Glas — Transportation Law, New Orleans Kelly E. Theard — Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants, New Orleans Below is the full list of Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. 2027 The Best Lawyers in America® Thirty-four Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®: New Orleans, Louisiana Jennifer Adams Litigation - Environmental Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Francis J. Barry, Jr. Admiralty and Maritime Law Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Keith J. Bergeron Construction Law Litigation - Construction Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Terrence L. Brennan Arbitration Construction Law Litigation - Construction Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Bertrand M. Cass, Jr. Admiralty and Maritime Law Energy Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Beverly Aloisio DeLaune Commercial Litigation Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Catherine Filippi Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John Jerry Glas Insurance Law Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Transportation Law David Groome, Jr. Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants William C. Harrison, Jr. Aviation Law Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Carl "Chip" Hellmers Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Karen Holland Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Duris L. Holmes Banking and Finance Law Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) Commercial Litigation Litigation - Bankruptcy Joshua G. Keller Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Ryan D. Kelley Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert E. Kerrigan, Jr. Commercial Litigation Litigation - Environmental Litigation - Insurance Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Charles E. Leche Admiralty and Maritime Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Frederic Theodore Le Clercq Employment Law - Management Labor Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Admiralty and Maritime Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Melissa M. Lessell Commercial Litigation Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Raymond C. Lewis Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Walter P. Maestri Admiralty and Maritime Law Energy Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Joseph L. McReynolds Appellate Practice Litigation - Construction Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Anne E. Medo Commercial Litigation Richard B. Montgomery III Commercial Transactions / UCC Law Litigation - Real Estate Real Estate Law Securitization and Structured Finance Law Sean P. Mount Commercial Litigation Insurance Law Litigation - Construction Litigation - Insurance Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Talbot M. Quinn Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Joanne Rinardo Employment Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Kermit L. Roux III Family Law Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brian S. Schaps Construction Law Litigation - Construction A. Wendel Stout III Litigation - Environmental Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Kelly E. Theard Construction Law Litigation - Construction Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Marc J. Yellin Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Gulfport, Mississippi Richard Tubertini Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) Commercial Litigation Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants R. Douglas Vaughn Health Care Law Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants 2027 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America Ten Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. New Orleans, LA Gregory J. Angelico Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Chance Carter Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Colin Casciato Commercial Litigation   Peter-Raymond Graffeo Construction Law   Ethan King Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Jose Ruiz Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Transportation Law   Justine Ware Insurance Law   Casey Wendling Professional Malpractice Law Gulfport, Mississippi Peyton Farve Insurance Law Transportation Law   Keeton Thach Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law
  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).