How is Amber Heard Paying For This? The Insurance lawsuits.
Episode 15527th July 2022 • The Emily Show • Emily D. Baker, Esq.
00:00:00 00:47:36

Share Episode

Shownotes

Check out our sponsors!

Use code LawNerd to get 20% off and Free Shipping. https://www.manscaped.com

Go to https://www.getquip.com/EMILYSHOW RIGHT NOW, and get your first refill FREE!

How is Amber Heard paying for all this? We heard her testify that she paid over 6 Million Dollars defending the defamation lawsuit….but did she? Her insurance companies are fighting over who should pay for her legal defense and it has a lot of details. Furthermore, her insurance company New York Marine is suing her for a judgment, saying they don’t have to pay for her lawyers or her Judgement. There is also the question of the suspension bond, will Johnny Depp be able to go after Amber Heard for the $10 Million judgment? Judge A made clear any suspension bond would need to be the full amount of the judgment plus the 6% interest. It will be interesting to see where this goes from here.


Transcripts

::

Welcome back to this week's

episode of The Emily Show.

::

And today

::

we are exploring a question

that I get asked so much

::

How is Amber

Heard paying for all of this?

::

How is she paying

for the appeal?

::

How did she pay for her case?

::

And to do that, we need to

explore the insurance cases.

::

So a few have heard

about the insurance cases

::

and are wondering

what's going on.

::

The reason I say cases

is because there are two

::

and we need to explore them now.

::

So today I'm breaking down

::

both of the insurance cases

and the judge's statements

::

at the June 24th hearing

about the suspension bond.

::

And what Amber Heard

has to pay for her appeal.

::

So we just need to get into it.

::

It's it's multiple cases

::

and it's look, it's

nerdy lore, interesting stuff.

::

And I can't wait to break it

down. So let's just get going.

::

Hey there.

Welcome to the Emily Show.

::

I'm your host, Emily Baker,

::

badass lawyer and everyone's

favorite legal commentator

::

breaking down the legal shit

in the news

::

and pop culture stories

you want to talk about.

::

I've been a licensed attorney

for over 15 years.

::

I'm a former prosecutor and I'm

a big fan of the crazy where.

::

So let's break it down.

::

A huge thank you to today's

sponsor, Manscaped.

::

July might be almost over, but,

::

you know,

August is just as swampy.

::

So you want to make sure

::

that your haircare for down

there is in tip top shape.

::

Look, it's still pool

season, people.

::

We want to make sure that we are

all the way together.

::

So why not get the product

::

that everyone in your household

can enjoy?

::

Manscaped

is the leader in the men's

::

below the belt waist grooming,

::

but I use

a lot of their products

::

and really enjoy them

and the kiddos use

::

their personal wash products

::

because they smell good

without smelling too much

::

and they have a spray

on moisturizer

::

that makes summer moisturizing

really easy.

::

I appreciate it,

but my favorite is

::

well, it's

a tie between the lawnmower 4.0

::

for all your bush

trimming needs down there.

::

It even has a light and

you can use it in the shower.

::

But also the weed whacker.

::

I can't talk enough about this

product.

::

Look, if you don't think nose

hair matters, it matters.

::

And you will notice

how much it matters

::

once you get your own weed

whacker.

::

If you want to try

their most popular products,

::

the performance package

has got you covered.

::

That package is for your package

::

with the lawnmower 4.0, the weed

whacker, the beloved crop

::

preserver,

which is a bowl deodorant,

::

and the crop reviver,

which is a spray on ball toner.

::

Look,

::

they're not for my bits

and pieces,

::

but they might be for yours.

::

It also comes

with two free gifts,

::

including the shed travel bag

::

and the reduced

chafing manscaped boxers.

::

But ladies,

::

if you're just looking

to purchase for you,

::

I would absolutely suggest

trying

::

the shaving products, the weed

whacker, the lawnmower.

::

They are fantastic.

::

So if you want to get 20% off

and free shipping,

::

use our code

laundered at Manscaped scum.

::

That's right. 20% off and free

shipping at Manscaped dotcom.

::

When you use our code launer

ladies do yourself a favor.

::

And even though these products

are marketed for men,

::

they work fantastically.

Give it a try for yourself.

::

And with that, let's get

back into today's episode.

::

So where we are so far

::

in the Johnny Depp Amber

Heard case is that Johnny Depp

::

was kind of a big winner

after jury trial.

::

He won all three

of his causes of action

::

and won over $10

million in damages.

::

It was 10 million

and compensatory,

::

5 million and punitive.

Those are the punishment ones.

::

The punitive damages

got reduced by law

::

because in Virginia,

they're like, you can't do that.

::

The max is 350,000.

::

They don't tell the jury that.

::

So the jury awarded

what they wanted to and punitive

::

they thought 5 million

was punishment for the behavior.

::

I'm surprised

they didn't pick seven.

::

Like if they're going that high,

why not just pick seven

::

that was pledged

and not donate it? I don't know.

::

But they did so ten and five

reduced to 350. So 10.3 million.

::

Amber Heard won one of her

causes of action against Johnny

::

Depp for statements

made by Adam Waldman.

::

So whenever the media talks

about the fact

::

that Amber Heard didn't

even mention

::

Johnny Depp's name,

::

they never seem to mention

the fact that Johnny Depp

::

didn't even say shit.

::

But I digress.

::

It's one of the inconsistencies

that has made me

::

absolutely crazy in watching

the reporting on this case.

::

Amber

Heard didn't even say his name.

::

Okay, Johnny Depp

didn't say anything.

::

So if we're keeping that energy,

I'm here for it.

::

With that,

we got into both parties

::

filing their notice of appeal.

::

A notice of appeal means

I'm going to appeal.

::

Both of them filed the

appropriate appeal bond of $500.

::

The question is, what about the

suspension of judgment bond?

::

Does it have to be filed or not?

::

And we're going to talk

::

about what judge as karate

had to say about that,

::

because there is still

conflicting

::

information about it.

We will see.

::

The deadline

is going to be Monday

::

before this episode's released,

but after it's recorded.

::

So we'll see what happens.

There will be a note.

::

Check the show notes,

check my check.

::

If luck,

::

whatever information comes out,

I will probably do a short

::

about it over on the quick bits

::

channel or on Instagram or

tik-tok. So check the socials.

::

There will be an update

and we'll see.

::

So with that, we have both

parties filing notice of appeal.

::

Each party

has three months to file

::

their brief,

the appellate brief,

::

what they're going to tell us

about what they're going to

::

you know,

::

if ever there was an episode

::

to be sponsored by Andrew, did

we talk about how good

::

the Manscaped underwear

was in this episode?

::

Because if we didn't,

they're boxers,

::

you know, they're not a brief,

but they're still great.

::

So with that,

::

the briefs are going to be filed

within three months.

::

Should they be filed sooner?

::

Yes. Yes, they could.

::

And that's

going to lay out the law,

::

the rulings,

the issues that each party have.

::

This is why we think

there needs to be a new trial.

::

This is why we think it should

be less of a judgment award.

::

This is why the jury can't do

what they did.

::

All of that stuff

will be in the appellate brief

::

and at that point, we can

evaluate the law and the facts

::

as they're presenting it

to the appellate court.

::

And then the judges or judge on

the appellate court

::

is going to decide

what happens on appeal.

::

So that's

where we're at with the appeal.

::

But because we know that Amber

Heard had a judgment against her

::

of over $10 million,

and because her lawyer, Lane,

::

went on all of the morning

shows very quickly

::

right after the verdict

::

and talked about the fact

that Amber Heard doesn't

::

have the money

to pay the judgment,

::

the question came up,

what about the bond

::

for the appeal?

::

And again, the $500 bond to file

the notice of appeal

::

has been paid by both parties,

it seems, based on the filings.

::

But the judge talked

::

about the suspension bond

::

when the judge entered

the judgment

::

against Amber Heard

and Johnny Depp on June 24th.

::

And we're going to take a look

at that transcript right now.

::

So during the June 24th hearing,

::

they talked about whether things

would be sealed or unsealed.

::

And we know

and I've talked about previously

::

that a bunch of things

are going to be unsealed.

::

When that happens, we'll start

looking at those documents.

::

They have been crowdfunded

::

by Andrea

::

Burkhart over on Twitter,

who also has a YouTube

::

channel, is also a lawyer

::

that's been covering this case

for a substantial

::

amount of time,

::

and I believe others are going

to be obtaining them as well.

::

So we will at some point,

we will see them

::

and we will cover them

and go over them.

::

So when things get unsealed,

it's going to be

::

thousands of pages of documents

to go through.

::

I hope there's a group effort.

::

I need to reach out

to the lawyers and be like,

::

How are

we dividing the outlines?

::

Like law school?

::

What motions are people covering

and what?

::

Just divide up the work it's

::

going to be so many documents,

but at the end of that hearing,

::

when they were talking about

unsealing things,

::

then we have Ms..

::

Bright a half a lane saying

::

and we will answer quote,

::

We'll look for it

and we'll answer no later

::

than next Friday when we file it

with the post-trial motions.

::

Your Honor, the court says,

All right,

::

Alayne says on the seal,

the court says, that's fine.

::

And when you appeal,

::

there will be a suspension

bond to you understand that?

::

That's the court.

::

And when you appeal,

::

there will be a suspension

bond to not a there may be not a

::

you can ask for one.

::

There will be.

::

So it's my understanding,

based on what

::

the judge is saying

in this case,

::

that the judge anticipates

a suspension

::

bond will be put into place.

::

Emily, what does that mean?

::

Okay, real quick,

::

a suspension bond

::

means that you need to put up

the amount of the judgment

::

while the judge

::

is going to tell them

how much they need to put up

::

so that the other parties

::

not trying to collect your bond,

well,

::

they or collect their judgment

while you're appealing.

::

It's almost like escrow.

::

You put all the money in escrow

and if you lose your appeal,

::

it goes to the party

it's supposed to go to.

::

If you win your appeal,

it goes back to you

::

or stays in escrow until

whatever happens next happens.

::

So it's a way to make sure

that it's

::

not an appeal as a delay tactic

to just not pay. Right.

::

So there's a lot of

circumstances

::

where we've seen different

type of appeals bond

::

be put into place

::

in cases that we've covered,

particularly for our purposes

::

because I cover so much

that's in the trial of a court.

::

We see appeals

with preliminary injunctions.

::

When you get a preliminary

injunction,

::

there is generally a bond

::

that can be enforced against you

for the losing side,

::

because if you're delaying

something,

::

you know, on and on and on.

::

So we've seen that in the Nike

mischief case.

::

We've seen that in the dress

designer case.

::

We've seen it

in a few other cases

::

where a bond is posted

due to a preliminary injunction.

::

This is a post-trial suspension

bond.

::

So let us not delve

into that anymore.

::

But look at what the judge said.

::

The Court That's fine.

::

And when you appeal,

::

there will be a suspension

bond to you understand that?

::

Alayne

We plan on addressing that

::

with the post-trial motions,

Your Honor,

::

she didn't spoiler alert.

::

It wasn't mentioned

::

in any of the post-race

file motions that I've seen.

::

And I think

we covered them all here.

::

So Alayne says

we plan on addressing it

::

with post-trial motion.

::

The court said, Well,

I can address it right now

::

if you want a lane

::

cut off the court and said,

I'd prefer to be able to.

::

And the court says,

I understand what you prefer.

::

Ooh, okay, Your Honor,

I understand what you prefer,

::

but I'm going to tell you,

::

the suspension bond

::

would be

::

the amount of the judgment

plus 6% interest for a year,

::

because that's

what it should be,

::

the amount of the judgment

plus 6% interest for the year.

::

So the court is telling Alayne

there will be a suspension bond

::

and it will be 10.3

million plus 6% interest.

::

Ms. Bright A half OC.

::

The Court Okay,

so that's one less thing I have.

::

You have to address. Ms.

Bright of Hot.

::

Well, Will, Your Honor

permit me to at least address

::

that in the post-trial motions,

::

and the court says if you wish,

but that's my order right now.

::

Alayne says, I understand,

completely understand.

::

The court says, okay.

::

Elaine says,

Thank you, Your Honor.

::

The court says, All right,

anything further bent?

::

You says, No, Your Honor.

Thank you very much.

::

The court says.

Anything further?

::

Elaine says, no.

::

The court says,

All right, we'll get

::

a copy of this order for you.

::

And then Ms..

::

Hoff said, I hope Your Honor had

a great vacation, by the way.

::

And the court said,

okay, I the court is in recess.

::

And that is kind of the end

::

of the part of the hearing

that's relevant for us.

::

At the very end of that hearing,

entering the final judgment.

::

But the court says, well,

::

so where this suspension

bond will come from,

::

we don't know yet,

::

but someone will be putting up

these suspension bond there.

::

You know,

I'm sure they will be working

::

with the bond company

to put it up

::

and put up collateral for it.

::

But we will see 10.3 million

plus 6% interest is just a lot.

::

But let's

::

look at how Amber Heard

was paying for her lawyers,

::

because we've learned

quite a lot about it

::

in a group of lawsuits.

There are two.

::

The first lawsuit is Travelers

Insurance

::

versus New York

Marine Insurance.

::

I'm going to truncate those two

travelers in New York Marine

::

because they are

suing each other

::

because they have both insured

Amber Heard.

::

The other one is New York Marine

suing Amber Heard directly,

::

both of these are in California

in federal court

::

because the insurance policies

were issued as homeowners

::

policies and umbrella policies

::

or general policies

in California.

::

We're not going to get into

::

the whole nitty gritty of these,

but we're going to go over

::

the things that we've learned

about Amber Heard defense

::

and what was going on behind

the scenes with the lawyers.

::

Because it's

really interesting stuff.

::

So the first

::

lawsuit we're looking at

is the first amended complaint

::

from Travelers Insurance

versus New York Marine.

::

And we're going

to look at the allegations

::

and then we're going to go

look at the answer from New York

::

Marine to get a little bit

more of the facts in this case.

::

So what travelers,

::

commercial insurance

company travelers

::

is looking for with New York

Marine is declaratory judgment

::

an equitable contribution?

::

What that means

is that they are looking for

::

the judge to declare something,

to make a ruling.

::

This is what it is to decide

a matter of law

::

as it applies to the facts

::

and for equitable contribution

of defense expenses.

::

Hey, we paid for this.

::

Pay us back or pay us your part.

::

So let's look at the facts here

::

and the allegations

from travelers.

::

What I appreciate

about the insurance lawsuits

::

is they are really concise

in their facts.

::

They're just written

in a very direct way

::

and it makes it

just so easy to go through.

::

Thank you to the lawyers

::

from Travelers and New York

::

Marine

for just getting to the point

::

and just putting it out

on paper. Just thank you.

::

Thank you. Thank you.

::

Defendant, New York Marine

and General Insurance Company.

::

And they call them pro site.

::

I don't know why

::

but in the case

they are calling them pro site.

::

I have been calling them

New York Marine in the document,

::

you will see it as pro

site, literally.

::

I have no idea

why I didn't research it,

::

but they're saying that

::

defendant, New York Marine

failed to meet its obligation

::

to provide its and travelers

mutual insured.

::

Amber

Heard, a California resident

::

with independent counsel

to defend the insured.

::

Amber heard

::

in an underlying

defamation action,

::

which is a breach of

its insurance policy

::

and its obligations.

::

New York Marine didn't

::

pay for independent counsel

for Amber Heard.

::

They go on to allege that

::

it has unfairly forced travelers

to pay

::

pro site's proper

share of defense costs.

::

Hey, we had to pay

for all the lawyers.

::

Travelers

has been damaged by this conduct

::

and it is entitled to a judgment

in the form of a declaration.

::

The pro site was obligated

to provide the mutual

::

insured with a proper defense.

::

Your Honor, tell Marine

::

General Pro site

that they had to pay Amber Heard

::

legal defense.

They had to pay for the lawyers.

::

We paid for all of it.

They have to pay their part.

::

Don't worry.

::

We're going to get into

::

whether they have to pay

or not in the second lawsuit.

::

So just just don't

get ahead of ourselves.

::

We're going to talk about it.

Don't worry.

::

They say that under the doctrine

of equitable contribution,

::

travelers

is entitled to reimbursement

::

from pro site

of at least half of the moneys

::

traveler has spent so far

to defend their mutual insured

::

with proper counsel and adequate

experts and vendors.

::

Travelers paid the attorneys,

the experts and vendors.

::

And they're going to tell you

::

how much they spent in attorneys

fees in a little bit.

::

And if you're sitting here

going, but, Emily,

::

I watched this whole trial

on your channel

::

and I remember when Amber Heard

was on the stand saying,

::

I've paid over

$6 million to defend this case.

::

What did she mean?

::

Well, she was using

I paid and travelers

::

paid synonymously

::

because travelers

makes it very clear

::

in this litigation

that they paid, not Amber Heard.

::

Did Amber heard

pay for the insurance?

::

We don't know who paid

for the insurance policy,

::

but we know that travelers

::

was paying for adequate experts,

vendors and proper counsel.

::

Why did they say proper counsel?

::

There's an argument over

whether the insurance company

::

picks the attorney or whether

the insurer picks the attorney.

::

It's an argument

that we are going to skip over

::

pretty quickly

::

because the facts that Maureen,

::

New York Maureen lays out are

very interesting on that point.

::

And so we will get there

when well, when we got there,

::

they lay out

information about the policies

::

that travelers

issue to homeowners policy

::

starting in November 14th, 2018,

th,:

::

And then New York.

::

Maureen issued a policy

that was a commercial general

::

liability insurance policy

::

between January 18th, 2018

th,:

::

and July 18th, 2019.

::

So both of these are covering

from:

::

Remember that defamatory article

came out in December:

::

So it falls

under both of these policies.

::

They talk about the underlying

defamation action,

::

which we know about in March

2019,

::

Heard was sued in Virginia

::

over the article Travelers

Response to the tender,

::

the tender being Amber Heard

going to her insurance company

::

being like,

I'm insured, I'm sued handle it

::

that they accepted

responsibility.

::

They offered to pay

for independent

::

defense counsel of Amber

Heard's own selection, subject

::

to rate limitations

under the California civil code.

::

And that traveler has paid

the fees.

::

Travelers has paid

::

the fees of the mutually insured

independent defense counsel,

::

travelers paid the fees.

::

They said that

pro site accepted its obligation

::

to defend the insured

under our reservation of rights.

::

Meaning if we don't have to,

we're not going to.

::

That's a very,

very brief summation,

::

but we'll see it in the other

lawsuit.

::

Pro cites reservation

triggered the mutual insurers

::

right to independent counsel

under California law.

::

And then they go through

the California law.

::

The judge made

a lot of rulings about this.

::

So we're not going to dove

into that tangent of it.

::

If there are any insurance

::

attorneys

listening, I'm not ignoring it.

::

It just is way deeper

than our purposes here today.

::

They said that Pro cites

reservation of rights

::

letters triggered

::

the fact that Amber Heard

was allowed

::

to choose independent counsel,

::

and they allege that instead

::

they picked the counsel

for Amber Heard.

::

They also said that pro site

sent an email

::

to travelers on September

,:

::

to revise its revision of rights

in such a way

::

as to avoid having

to provide the mutual insured

::

Amber Heard

::

with independent defense Counsel

by Independent Defense Counsel

::

in defense counsel of Amber

Heard's choice

::

not of the insurance

companies choice,

::

and said in

the email, according to this

::

allegation,

::

that the reservation of rights

::

under the intentional acts

exclusion is not necessary

::

as coverage for willful acts

::

is not insurable

as a matter of public policy,

::

just like punitive damages.

::

This is really the basis

of the other lawsuit

::

that the insurance coverage is

not applicable to willful acts.

::

And if you're sitting there

going,

::

wait a sec, defamation against

public figures involves malice.

::

It isn't malice,

just willfulness.

::

Yes, yes, it is.

And we will get to it.

::

So they go on in this email,

::

as it's alleged in this lawsuit,

to say if you reserve rights

::

by simply saying, quote,

::

To the extent that California

law does not permit an insurer

::

to indemnify the insured,

no indemnity can be provided.

::

You address both the willful

acts and punitive damages.

::

Insurance doesn't cover that,

::

and you can still control

the defense as

::

there is no conflict of interest

under California law.

::

What the judge ruled

::

in other motions regarding

::

this is that this is not under

California law.

::

This is Virginia.

::

They're Virginia attorneys

in a Virginia court,

::

though,

the insurance policies are

::

governed under California law.

::

The attorney conflict

rules of Virginia

::

are what's going to apply.

::

That's a whole deep

dove into insurance.

::

They're saying that pro site

::

instead appointed

defense counsel of its choosing

::

and refused demands by heard

::

and by travelers

to participate in the defense

::

with counsel of the insureds

choosing Amber Heard.

::

They say that this was

compounded by a breach of duty

::

to defend duty to defend

that defamation lawsuit

::

by having its appointed counsel

do next to nothing and quote

::

unquote, piggybacking

::

on the work of the mutual

insurance independent counsel

::

paid for by travelers.

::

So we now have allegations

that there were attorneys

::

hired by travelers

::

and attorneys hired by New York

Marine One, not hire

::

attorneys hired by Amber Heard

and paid for by the insurance

::

travelers is alleging

::

they let Amber Heard choose

whoever she wanted, make us aid.

::

But they're saying that New York

Marine

::

chose the attorneys for Amber

Heard and did not participate

::

with travelers in letting her

choose her own attorneys.

::

That's

what they're alleging here.

::

Then they say that pro sites

appointed counsel

::

withdrew from representation

,:

::

and that pro site advised

,:

::

that it would pay

::

50% of the fees and costs

incurred by the independent

::

defense counsel

::

after November 20, 2020,

after the time

::

where their attorneys

withdrew from representation.

::

Then they get into the disputes,

::

the declaratory,

the declaratory judgment.

::

They are seeking a declaration

against New York Marine saying

::

duty to defend

since the underlying action

::

was tendered to it.

::

And through the present process,

::

it is obligated under the policy

to defend the insurer.

::

You have to provide

money for the legal defense

::

duty to

defend with independent counsel.

::

Not only do

you have to provide attorneys,

::

you have to let the insurer pick

the attorneys

::

breach of duty to defend the pro

site, failed to meet its duty

::

to defend the insured

in the underlying action,

::

and has failed to properly

defend the insured

::

with independent defense

counsels of the insureds.

::

Choosing

::

then obligation

to reimburse travelers

::

because they had an obligation

to defend is what they're saying

::

that now

they have to reimburse travelers

::

for at least half of the fees,

costs

::

and expenses

incurred by travelers

::

obligation to pay fees and costs

::

incurred by independent counsel.

::

Hey, we've been paying all the

fees and costs for the lawyers.

::

You have to pay for the lawyers.

::

They say travelers is informed

and believes that pro site

::

disputes travelers right to each

and every one of the foregoing

::

your honor rule

as a matter of law on the facts

::

that the and declare this relief

::

because once you declare this

relief then they can follow up.

::

Then they're also asking in

count two

::

for equitable

contribution. Pay us, pay us,

::

pay us.

::

So let's get into the facts

a little bit more

::

on what pay us really means.

::

Huge. Thank you to today's

sponsor quip.

::

One of the things I love

so much about Quip

::

is they make it really easy

::

to get the things you need to

your door.

::

You know,

I just love things being easy.

::

Set it and forget it.

Just deliver it.

::

Quip delivers

a ton of your oral hygiene needs

::

directly to your door,

::

including brush heads,

::

floss, toothpaste,

mouthwash, gum refills.

::

You can get those

::

coming to your door on rotation

from just $5

::

and shipping is free.

::

So you save money,

::

you save yourself

a trip to the store.

::

You have what you need

when you need it.

::

And it all works with their

incredible smart toothbrush.

::

The smart electronic toothbrush

::

is everything you love

about the original brush,

::

but a new Bluetooth

::

smart motor

::

that connects

to the Free Quip app.

::

So you can monitor

your brushing,

::

get tips and daily coaching.

::

And of course, earn.

::

Those are words

for all kinds of free stuff,

::

including a solar battery

charger.

::

Emily, would you take your sonic

toothbrush out into the woods?

::

Yes. Yes,

I would. And everywhere.

::

But you can also get things

like e-gift cards

::

to target tote bags,

refillable floss and others.

::

So if you want to find out

why my entire family loves Quip,

::

you can find out for yourself

if you go to get quip dot

::

com slash Emily show right now

you'll get your first

::

refill free

::

That's your first refill free at

get quip dot com slash Emily

::

show spelled get Q u

IP dot com slash Emily show

::

find out why

quip is the good habits company.

::

Partly because they just

send it to you.

::

It makes it so easy.

So go find out for yourself.

::

Let's get back to today's

episode.

::

So in

their answer to this lawsuit,

::

New York,

Maureen was like, Cute.

::

We deny everything.

::

And this is typical

in an answer to a lawsuit.

::

We deny this.

::

We deny that we don't have

enough information to deny

::

these are our affirmative

defenses, etc.

::

So we're not going to go

through the general denials

::

because it's like deny,

deny, deny,

::

but then they also countersued.

::

So aside

from the general denials

::

we get the counterclaim

::

and the counterclaim gives us

all of the tea.

::

The counterclaim tells us

what's going on

::

with these lawyers,

and I'm here for it.

::

So in the counterclaim,

::

New York, Maureen acknowledges

that travelers had a policy

::

that went from the same dates

that that New York

::

Maureen had a commercial general

liability policy

::

that Amber

::

Heard was sued in Virginia

for defamation in March:

::

that New York Maureen accepted

the insureds

::

defense and said,

th,:

::

the insured tendered the

underlying action to New York.

::

Maureen So Amber Heard

sent it to New York.

::

MAUREEN For insurance coverage

th,:

::

And they say upon information

and belief, they also tendered

::

the underlying actually

travelers on the same day.

::

They say on October 1st, 2019,

New York, Maureen accepted

::

the insureds defense subject

to a reservation of rights.

::

Hey, we're not going to pay

anything.

::

We don't have to by law.

::

And they appointed the law

firm of Cameron McEvoy

::

P LLC to defend the assured

in the underlying action.

::

This is the key for me.

::

At the time

it appointed Cameron McEvoy

::

to represent the insured

in the underlying action camera.

::

McEvoy was already representing

the insured in that litigation,

::

having

been retained by the insured.

::

Oh what?

::

So they appointed the attorney

::

that had already been hired

by Amber Heard.

::

Weird, weird.

::

So all of the argument over

independent counsel

::

I don't think is on point

::

because Amber Heard had already

hired these attorneys

::

when they said, okay,

we will appoint these attorneys,

::

we're

appointing these attorneys.

::

The attorneys

that you already retained

::

independently, making them

that independent attorneys.

::

They say that Cameron McEvoy

is located in Fairfax, Virginia.

::

And you know what?

::

They don't allege the Cameron

McEvoy is so fucking glad

::

that they are not involved

in all of this.

::

But I think we can read

between the lines here.

::

That's just me being cheeky.

::

Cameron McEvoy is located in

Fairfax, Virginia,

::

and the attorneys

retained to defend the insured

::

in the underlying action

are licensed in Virginia,

::

not California, relevant

to the other provisions

::

we talked about in appointing

::

Cameron McEvoy, New York,

Maureen expressly instructed

::

that firm that it was to serve

as lead counsel.

::

You've already been retained.

You are lead counsel.

::

Traveler accepted the insureds

defense on October 7th after

::

New York Maureen

::

and travelers agreed to

::

assume the defense

and the underlying action

::

travelers on October 7th, 2019

::

sent a reservation of rights

letters

::

to provide the insured

with independent counsel

::

following traveler's October 7th

Reservation of Rights letter,

::

the insured retained

::

and travelers has funded

::

the insureds defense

through New York based attorney

::

Roberta Kaplan of the law firm

Kaplan, Hecker and Fink.

::

And we saw that with

::

we saw that

in the early depositions

::

that were played in the trial,

::

that the early depositions

were done

::

by this attorney,

Roberta Kaplan, not by a lane.

::

Remember the date

that the other attorneys

::

heated themselves in 2020?

::

I wonder if this has anything

to do with it

::

in or about June 2020,

the insured replaced

::

the Kaplan firm with Virginia

based licensed attorney Elaine

::

Brett, a host of the law firm

Charlson.

::

Brett

Cohen, Brown and Neidl Haft.

::

Hmm. Although Travelers

has permitted the insured

::

and both the Kaplan

::

and Brett Huff firms

::

to retain and utilize

other attorneys and firms

::

to assist in the representation

of the insured.

::

The Kaplan firm and subsequently

the Brett Huff firm

::

were the only firms

funded by travelers

::

who were primarily responsible

for the defense.

::

They go on to talk about

the fact

::

that the insurance company

can limit the rates,

::

and they say that travelers

did not enforce the provision

::

of the civil code

that allows independent counsel

::

retained and funded by travelers

to reduce its rates,

::

they said.

::

Instead, travelers

permitted the independent

::

counsel retained by the insurer

to fund

::

and funded by travelers

to bill and receive payment

::

at independent counsel's

own usual and customary rates.

::

Rates

which are higher than, quote,

::

the rates

::

which are actually paid

by travelers, quote

::

to attorneys retained by it

::

in the ordinary course

::

of business,

::

in the defense of

similar actions in the community

::

where the claim arose

or is being defended.

::

So in this counterclaim,

::

you're getting New York,

Maureen, saying,

::

why should we have to pay half

::

when you agreed to pay

like all the shit,

::

but you're not following

the codes to the code.

::

When you follow the code,

::

you would have been paying them

a normal rate

::

for the type of defense

that the insurance company

::

would normally pay,

not whatever their billing

::

they say specifically on or

th,:

::

entered into an agreement with

independent counsel Bret Aloft.

::

Alain, pursuant

to which independent counsel

::

was permitted

to bill at its usual

::

and customary hourly rates

which aren't listed here.

::

Bummer without limitation

::

on those amounts subject

to a purported agreement

::

that this would constitute

a quote capped fee of 2.5

::

million through

post-trial motions. Interesting.

::

As the February 2021

independent counsel

::

had exhausted the purported fee

cap of $2.5 million

::

by February 2021, Brett

::

had exhausted

the fee cap of 2.5 million,

::

but trial remained

more than a year away.

::

They go on to allege that

rather than holding independent

::

counsel to the agreement,

::

Hey, you said 2.5 million

through post-trial motions.

::

The rest

is on you, friend. Good luck,

::

they say.

::

On May 18th,

::

2021, travelers

entered into a new agreement

::

with independent counsel

::

pursuant to which it violated

the original tact fee

::

and agreed to continue

to pay independent counsel's

::

ongoing fees and costs.

Oh, we had an agreement.

::

But what about an information

and belief?

::

By way of the new May 18, 2021,

::

travelers exercised

::

its rights under Civil Code 2860

to limit payments

::

to independent counsel

::

to rates

that were actually paid by it

::

to other attorneys retained in

the ordinary course of business.

::

So that's when they started

limiting what could be charged

::

filing as a result

and on information and belief,

::

travelers has occurred

in excess of $5 million

::

in defense

::

fees and costs

::

incurred action

with the underlying action

::

far in excess of the amounts

::

which travelers was required

to pay.

::

In light

of the provision of civil code

::

2860 C upon

which it could have relied.

::

Remember, this motion is filed

::

in case we didn't see it on

th,:

::

So as of March 25th, 2022,

before this goes to trial, trial

::

being the most expensive part

of any litigation,

::

before this goes to trial,

they have exhausted over

::

$5 million in defense fees.

::

They then get into

what was going on

::

between the attorneys

::

following travelers in New York

Marine's respective

::

reservations of rights travelers

in New York.

::

Maureen's,

through the representative

::

counsel funded by it, proceeded

::

to defend the insured

in the underlying action.

::

Independent counsel retained

::

by the insured

and funded by travelers

::

consistently refused

to cooperate with Cameron McEvoy

::

and deliberately obstructed

and prevented Cameron McAvoy's

::

active involvement

::

in the defense of Amber Heard,

specifically independent counsel

::

retained by the insured

and funded by Travelers

::

permitted Cameron McAvoy and its

attorneys from communications

::

with the Court

in opposing counsel

::

from and from case

related emails,

::

they say that the Travelers

Attorneys, Alain at one point

::

also frequently admitted

and failed to notify or include

::

Cameron McEvoy in discussions

in consideration of

::

strategy and tactics,

::

and frequently failed to include

::

Cameron

McEvoy pleadings and notices,

::

including by removing them

from the pleadings, proofs

::

of services

::

and other notices in

::

or about August 20, 20,

the Bretton Hall

::

firm entered into a stipulation

to continue the trial

::

without including Cameron McAvoy

in discussion.

::

Expensive, by the way,

delaying trial for two years

::

without notifying

counsel of such stipulation,

::

without including them

on the stipulation

::

or proofs of services

::

with the result

that Cameron McEvoy

::

learned of the stipulation

and Court's order

::

through the court's

publicly available docket,

::

travelers has inhibited

and obstructed

::

York Marine's

ongoing participation

::

in the defense of the insured

by failing to timely provide

::

copies of status reports,

::

invoices, billing

audits and proofs of payment.

::

Despite the requests,

they then go on to say in March.

::

On March 21st, 2020,

::

an email to attorney Sean

Roche of the Camera McEvoy firm.

::

Pamela Johnson, Travelers

Assistant VP and Claim

::

Professional and others

::

talked about the billing

::

and sharing of work, stated

that her conversation

::

with independent counsel

did not go well.

::

So this is an attorney from

Cameron McEvoy, hired by Amber

::

Heard and being paid by New York

::

Marine is trying to communicate

with Alain

::

and that the conversation

with Elaine, quote unquote,

::

did not go well.

::

Great

::

notwithstanding Travelers

March:

::

with them, independent counsel

continued to refuse to cooperate

::

with or facilitate Cameron

McAvoy's active participation

::

in the defense. Interesting

::

travelers thereafter both

::

failed to insist

::

that independent

::

counsel cooperate

with and facilitate

::

the full and active

participation of Cameron McEvoy

::

in the defense of the insured

and the underlying action

::

as a result of independent

counsel's refusal. Elaine.

::

As a result of independent

counsel's refusal

::

to cooperate with or facilitate

::

its active participation

::

in the defense

of the underlying action

::

and travelers failure to obtain

a required cooperation.

::

On November six, 2020,

the camera McEvoy firm

::

withdrew its representation

of Amber Heard.

::

In this action or in that

action, the defamation action.

::

So so travelers

paid Alain at all

::

amber Heard had previously hired

the Cameron McEvoy firm

::

and New York

::

Marine appointed them

and was willing to pay them.

::

And then they couldn't work

with Alain.

::

And Alain, it sounds from

::

these allegations, was leaving

them off of everything.

::

So now they are countersuing.

::

New York

Marine is countersuing travelers

::

for declaratory relief

::

that they didn't owe a duty

to defend the insured

::

through independent counsel,

that they that New York

::

Marine did not fail to provide

a defense to its insured.

::

They tried that.

::

They don't have to reimburse

travelers

::

because travelers

doesn't isn't entitled

::

to 50% of all of the wild fees

they agreed to

::

and the preferable lines out

all of the declarations

::

that they want

and the declaratory relief.

::

But that's not all,

::

because then New York

Marine sued Amber Heard

::

Weird.

::

So on July eight,

20, 22, New York Marine

::

Insurance

Company sued Amber Heard.

::

And then they filed

a first amended complaint

::

on July 11th, 2022,

::

as we lovingly refer to them

on this channel, SAC.

::

It's a fact.

::

Let's take a look briefly

::

at what New York Marine is suing

Amber Heard over.

::

It's mostly

for declaratory relief.

::

It's mostly for declaratory

relief.

::

The factual allegations,

the insurance policy,

::

New York

Marine issued policy number,

::

policy number

listed to named insured

::

under the Black Sky

Ink and Amber Heard for a policy

::

period of July 18th, 2018

th,:

::

with a per occurrence

limit of $1,000,000.

::

They say that the

policy includes comprehensive

::

personal liability coverage,

::

and they define personal injury

in that comprehensive coverage

::

to mean injury

other than bodily injury

::

arising out of one

or more enumerated offenses,

::

including oral or written

publication of material

::

that slanders or libels

a person or organization,

::

including other forms

of defamation.

::

So defamation is covered.

::

They go through the underlying

lawsuit and talk about the fact

::

that Johnny Depp sued

Amber Heard in Virginia

::

on March

::

1st, 2019, for The Washington

Post op ed published

::

December 18th and 19th, 2018.

::

They said that on October 1st,

they accepted the defense.

::

As we heard

in the other lawsuit,

::

and that at the time

::

Amber Heard had already retained

Cameron McEvoy, LLC,

::

and this insurance company

went ahead and appointed

::

that law firm for the defense

to be paid by the insurance.

::

They say the underlying action

proceeded to trial April

::

11th on May 27th, the court

issued the jury instructions.

::

They attached them

::

because the jury instructions

make it clear that

::

this is a willful defamation.

::

They say that on June 1st,

::

the jury in the underlying

action returned a verdict

::

in favor of Depp for all counts.

::

And then they talk about what

the judgment was,

::

including the 2 million award

and then the 5 million

::

punitive damages

and then the statutory cap.

::

Their first course of action

is declaratory relief

::

as to plaintiff's duty to

indemnify hurt for the judgment

::

order under the policy.

::

We're not paying the judgment.

::

Remember, they're fighting

::

in the other court

over the lawyers

::

and now they're saying we're not

paying the judgment either.

::

Just incorporates everything.

::

By reference, California

Insurance Code

::

533 provides

that an insurer is not liable

::

for a loss caused by the willful

act of the insured. Well

::

well,

that that that is a problem.

::

Willful is literally

the part of the defamation

::

that makes this defamation

hard to prove.

::

There has to be malice, malice,

willfulness, willful regard.

::

The truth you have to intended.

It's not a whoopsie.

::

You have to know that the shit

that you're saying is false.

::

And the jury found it

specifically.

::

And in the jury verdict forms

that we've been over,

::

when it asks, was it willful,

it says yes on all three,

::

which is why they attached them

as an exhibit

::

in this case, they attach

all of the jury verdict forms

::

and the jury instructions

as exhibits to this lawsuit.

::

But the California insurance

::

code five, three, three says,

no, sir, no, ma'am.

::

An insurer,

::

the insurance company here

::

is not liable

::

for a loss caused by the willful

act of the insured.

::

But he is not exonerated

by a negligence of the insured.

::

If it was regular defamation,

::

not of a public figure,

no malice, it's covered.

::

But when it's malice,

it's not covered.

::

This provision is an implied

exclusionary clause,

::

which by statute is read

into all insurance policies.

::

Under California law,

::

the jury's factual findings

establish that Hurd's liability

::

is caused

by the willful acts of Hurd.

::

And then they go on to say,

Therefore, we don't have to pay.

::

Due to the actual and present

controversy described above,

::

we're asking

for declaratory relief,

::

and then they ask for other

types of declaratory relief,

::

including that

::

the plaintiff insurance company

did not have to indemnify

::

Hurd for the judgment

and the underlying action.

::

They're asking

::

for declaratory relief

that the insurance company does

::

not have to defend Hurd

in the underlying action

::

this is going to say, look,

we don't have to defend.

::

So even if the other court is

like, you should share cause

::

we didn't have a duty to defend.

::

So this is kind of overlapping

a little bit with the other

::

interesting insurance

company action.

::

So they don't have to defend you

because of the willfulness,

::

meaning that if they had paid

for the defense,

::

could they go

claw back and be like,

::

the jury found

this to be willful, pay us back.

::

We don't have

to we don't have to pay you

::

or we

don't have to pay your lawyers.

::

The fourth cause is declaratory

relief

::

as to the insurance company's

duty to defend

::

and indemnify

Amber Heard under the policy

::

and then they reiterate that

in their prayer for relief.

::

So what we have

here is two lawsuits.

::

One is the insurance companies

fighting among each other

::

travelers

has paid over 5 million.

::

We know that that's gone well up

since March for Amber Heard.

::

And they want New York

Marine to pay half.

::

And New York Marine sued Amber

::

Heard and said,

we don't have to pay you shit.

::

And New York Marine countersued

travelers and said

::

we're not paying half.

::

Also,

::

you done messed up

because you let the attorneys

::

wild out with the fees

you boxed out.

::

Our attorneys, our attorneys

needed and that is on you.

::

So we're not paying it.

::

So could Amber Heard be on

the hook for her own judgment?

::

Yes. Could travelers

::

under their policy

be on the hook for some of it?

::

Possibly.

::

Have we seen all of what

travelers on the hook for? No.

::

But what we do know is

travelers has footed the bill

::

for a lane at all.

::

So when Amber Heard testified

that she has paid

::

$6 million, was that true?

::

It depends

what the definition of paid is.

::

If I paid you mean your

insurance company paid it, then?

::

I guess.

::

But if I paid you mean

you donated it?

::

Well, those things are just

synonymous,

::

so it's not really paid.

::

I don't understand

why Amber Heard doesn't

::

understand

what paying for shit is.

::

How you not know what paying for

things means. But she doesn't.

::

So with that,

::

we're going to see,

::

I think, an uptick

in the litigation

::

and between the two insurance

companies.

::

Now that this case is completed,

::

we are going to see this back in

court.

::

It's set for a jury trial.

::

Will that go to trial?

I don't know.

::

But if it does, oh, boy.

::

I want to see

::

I want to see the emails

between all the attorneys. Yep.

::

I want to see the attorneys

fighting it out.

::

What were those conversations

with Lane like before?

::

The other counsel was like,

We are bouncing.

::

I want to know

::

and I'm very interested

to see what's going to happen

::

with this declaratory relief

against Amber Heard.

::

I don't think under the law

in California,

::

I cannot see a situation

::

where New York Marine has to pay

a dime of this judgment.

::

And we will see

if Amber Heard puts up

::

that suspension

bond for the appeal shortly.

::

It's a whole lot of money,

::

but it's a whole

nother situation

::

where Amber Heard's like

what paid, pledged, donated,

::

insured, whatever.

::

It's all the same.

::

It's not all the same

to these insurance companies

::

that are duking this out

in court.

::

Don't forget to let me know

::

what questions you have about

today's episode on social media

::

if you are a member

in our member spaces.

::

When I put up discussion

threads, this is not over.

::

So even though we have

all of the appeals going on,

::

we're still going to have

these insurance cases going on.

::

We are not out of the woods

on this yet.

::

Thank you

so much for being here.

::

Thank you

for spending another episode

::

of The Emily Show with the

I will see you in the next one.

::

May your wife I be strong.

::

May your toilet paper

be plentiful.

::

May it not be too hot

where you live.

::

May your gas not be $7 a gallon.

::

May your family be well,

may you not have monkeypox,

::

and may the odds be ever

in your favor.

::

The outros just going to keep

growing because

::

weird shit just keeps happening.

Thank you for being here.

::

Thank you for being so honored.

I'll see you in the next one.

Links