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.
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.