insurance companies or corporate defendants and their lawyers frequently ask courts to “bifurcate” trial and discovery in cases involving breach of contract and bad faith claims. That means the insurance company wants the court to order separate trials and separate discovery periods on the different causes of action an insured brings against the carrier in a particular lawsuit. In the vast majority of cases, this serves no purpose other than to waste time and resources, drive up attorney’s fees, and delay resolution of the claim the insurer should have paid in the first place. Which is fine for the insurance company, which has unlimited resources, and pays its lawyers by the hour.
Daly & Black, P.C., recently won this battle in a case pending in Nebraska. The judge wrote a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion explaining why bifurcation was not appropriate in that case. We believe the court’s analysis is applicable to most first party storm damage cases.
Unlike some other firms who do this type of work, our firm diligently researches and briefs legal issues that, while not dispositive, can increase our leverage and ultimately help maximize your recovery. In this case, we anticipate that the court’s ruling on bifurcation will rightly result in more efficient and expeditious resolution of our client’s case.
If your insurance company has wrongfully denied or underpaid your storm damage claim – no matter where you are located – call us. It does not cost you anything for us to analyze or pursue your case, and because we don’t recover unless you do, we work hard to successfully resolve it.