Harvard's suit against insurance broker over affirmative action case coverage narrowed
By Nate Raymond
Aug 15 (Reuters) -A federal judge on Thursday dismissed part of a lawsuit by Harvard University accusing a broker of botching the school's claim for up to $15 million in insurance coverage to help pay its legal bills in the case that led the U.S. Supreme Court to bar the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston ruled that Harvard waited too long to sue a unit of Marsh & McLennan MMC.N for breach of contract for failing to timely notify one of its excess insurance carriers of the affirmative action case.
That insurance carrier, a unit of Zurich Insurance Group, last year convinced a federal appeals court to hold that it had no obligation to cover expenses arising from a lawsuit filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions.
That lawsuit, along with a related case against the University of North Carolina, resulted in a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June 2023 that ended affirmative action policies long used to raise the number of Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority students on American campuses.
Both cases were filed by SFFA, a nonprofit founded by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, which alleged that Harvard's race-conscious admissions policies discriminated against Asian American applicants.
Harvard has said that the costs of defending against that lawsuit and a related government investigation exceeded the $25 million limit in a policy issued by its primary insurer, an AIG Inc unit, which had a $2.5 million deductible.
The universitywas represented by the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in the affirmative action case.
Harvard did not respond to a request for comment. Marsh declined to comment.
In a lawsuit filed in October, Harvard said after SFFA sued, it asked Marsh USA, its insurance broker, to report the matter to AIG for coverage but that unbeknownst to the school, Marsh did not also report SFFA's case to Zurich until 2017.
Harvard said its policy with Zurich would have entitled it to up to $15 million in coverage in excess of the $27.5 million. Zurich denied coverage, saying Harvard failed to provide it timely notice of its claim.
After Harvard lost its case against Zurich, it sued Marsh for breach of contract and malpractice for failing to provide timely notice of the SFFA case to Zurich as required under its agreement with the broker.
But Burroughs on Thursday said that under New York law, which she said governed, Harvard needed to have brought its breach of contract claims by September 2022 and that they were filed outside the statute of limitations.
Harvard's remaining claims for broker malpractice remain pending.
The case is President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Marsh USA Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:23-cv-13017.
For Harvard: Robert Gilbert and Daniel Sack of Latham & Watkins
For Marsh: Jonathan Handler and Candace Hensley of Day Pitney
Read more:
Harvard cannot recoup $15 mln from insurer for race case costs, court rules
US Supreme Court rejects affirmative action in university admissions
Harvard can't force insurer to cover $15 mln in race-case defense costs - judge
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
