Cives Corporation Case Study

As I expressed in my previous letter addressed to you in May 2017, Cives Corporation (“Cives”) had significant concerns at that time involving the manner in which Starr Indemnity and Liability Company (“Starr”) has taken a position in the above litigation that is adverse to Cives. As you are aware, Cives is one of the insureds afforded coverage and a committed defense under the CCIP policy that Starr issued to Lend Lease for the River Point project. Starr’s prior position as expressed in your April 7, 2017 letter to Mr. Richard Barry included demanding a return of fees Starr paid to Stone & Johnson on behalf of Cives in addition to a threat to withdraw its defense under the Starr policy. Not only was Starr’s position on the issue evidence
(“Midwest”). Further, Starr’s actions overwhelming demonstrate the approach that it has taken in this matter is to place its own interests before that of Cives, again, a member of the
If Mr. Manual had checked the drawings, he would have noticed that Cives conspicuously indicated on the drawings that the relevant connection was to be field-welded. Consequently, as Mr. Manual testified, if he had known the connection was to be field-welded, he would have informed Midwest’s foreman that temporary support was needed. Moreover, if Cives did indicate on the drawings that temporary support was suggested or recommended, even though the standard of care does not require it to do so, Mr. Manual would not have seen the notation because he never looked at the drawings before making a critical decision regarding his coworkers’ safety. Additionally, the actions of the parties overwhelmingly establish that it was not Cives’ obligation to indicate temporary support was needed for any connection on the project. Instead, Midwest determined if temporary support was necessary for other connections on the structure. Finally, Starr’s appointed counsel has repeatedly informed Starr that Lend Lease’s theory finds no support in the