Our E & O insurance does not require a judgement against us in order for a loss to be covered if we acknowledge our error. If an insurance agent's E & O insurance does require that, then I am in error. Perhaps I should not have assumed that the agent was acknowledging responsibility when the agent filed a claim without having been served with a lawsuit.
That is very true. The same with any liability insurance carrier having settled a third-party claim upon recognizing its ultimate liability for a loss covered by the policy. *
The issue here might be one of "i
njuria sine damno". Latin meaning a legal wrong that causes no actual damage to anyone.
In other words, whether misfeasance on the part of the OP's real estate agent is acknowledged or not any resulting loss or damage to the OP is shear speculation; i. e., contingent on the merits/outcome of the
slip-and-fall tort claim.
My thinking is that it is unfortunate that anyone ever mentioned the subject of E & O coverage to the OP. He appears to be hopelessly clinging to it as some form of a panacea or cure all.
Anyway, his burden now is to engage an attorney having the experience and skills needed to consolidate these numerous issues and parties into a set of pleadings - including defending the tort action, inter pleading the agent and his E & O carrier and seeking a judgment over against the latter two for any rendered against him in the
slip-and-fall tort claim.
Incidentally, please don't compartmentalize or pigeonhole trial lawyers. Of course, some do specialize. But generally, they are capable of
multitasking. (Such a jaded and ugly word!)
____________________
[*] E.g., auto liability policies where in the insurer simply indemnifies the insured customer without creating privity with third party claimants.
