Schwartz Brothers Insurance
NEW YORK, April 21, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- NFP, a leading provider of insurance and wealth management services, today announced that it has acquired Schwartz Brothers Insurance Agency, L.L.C. and the corporate benefits business of Schwartz Benefit Services, Inc. (together with affiliated entities, the Schwartz Brothers Companies). The transaction closed on April 18, 2014.
schwartz brothers insurance
Founded in 1919, the Schwartz Brothers Companies, located in Chicago, have a strong track record of combining years of experience with innovative management strategies to provide customized risk management, insurance and corporate benefit solutions. Managing members Donald Zimelis, J. Spencer Miller and Howard Sharfman will focus on strengthening NFP's property and casualty and corporate benefits business in the Midwest region.
ABOUT NFP National Financial Partners Corp. (NFP) and its benefits, insurance and wealth management businesses provide diversified advisory and brokerage services to companies and high net worth individuals, partnering to help preserve their assets and prosper over the long term. NFP advisors provide innovative and comprehensive solutions, backed by NFP's national scale and resources. NFP operates in three business segments. The Corporate Client Group provides corporate and executive benefits, property and casualty insurance and retirement plans. The Individual Client Group includes retail and wholesale life insurance brokerage and wealth management advisory services. The Advisor Services Group serves independent financial advisors by offering broker/dealer and asset management products and services. Most recently NFP was ranked in the top 10 on Business Insurance's 100 Largest Brokers of U.S. Business and Best's Review's Top Global Insurance Broker lists; second on Business Insurance's Largest Agents and Brokers Headquartered in the U.S. Northeast; it operates the fifth-largest executive benefits provider of nonqualified deferred compensation plans by total clients, as ranked by PlanSponsor; and operates a top 10 independent broker/dealer as ranked by InvestmentAdvisor. NFP is also a leading independent life insurance distributor according to many top-tier carriers. For more information, visit www.nfp.com.
The Schwartz Brothers Cos., located in Chicago, provide customized risk management, insurance and corporate benefit solutions, according to a statement issued by NFP. Managing members Donald Zimelis, J. Spencer Miller and Howard Sharfman will focus on strengthening NFP's property and casualty and corporate benefits business in the Midwest, said NFP.
Mr. Schwartz, what happens if my Virginia underinsured motorist coverage is not enough to cover the value of my case and the other driver has no assets? This is a common problem faced by Virginia car accident lawyers. Assume you were in a Herndon, Virginia, Fairfax County car accident with serious personal injuries caused by Danielle who is charged by the Fairfax County Police with reckless driving. The reckless driver, Danielle, has only $25,000 in auto liability insurance. You have $100,000 in Virginia underinsured motorist coverage with State Farm. This gives you $75,000 in underinsured motorist coverage, in addition to $25,000 liability coverage, for a total recovery of $100,000. Your Herndon, Virginia auto accident case is worth over $1,000,000. What do you do?
Answer: Ask is there anyone in your household that owns a car and has a separate auto insurance policy? If the answer is yes, Virginia law allows you to stack the underinsured motorist coverage on all the separate policies in the same household to increase your total Herndon, Virginia automobile accident recovery.
The reckless driver, Danielle, has $25,000 per person auto liability limits. In our example, you have $100,000 in liability and underinsured motorist coverage with State Farm. You live with your mom and brothers, Andy and Bill. Each owns a car and has a separate auto policy. Your mom insures her car with Travelers and has per person auto liability and uninsured motorist limits of $500,000. Brother Andy insures his car with Allstate and has per person liability and uninsured motorist limits of $250,000. Brother Bill insures his car with Nationwide and has per person motor vehicle liability and uninsured motorist limits of $250,000.
The total underinsured motorist coverage available to you is determined by stacking the following: $100,000 (you); $500,000 (mom); $250,000 (brother Andy); and $250,000 (brother Bill). This equals $1,100,000. Since the reckless driving defendant, Danielle, had $25,000 in liability insurance coverage, you are entitled to the difference, $1,075,000 ($1,100,000 - $25,000) in Virginia underinsured motorist coverage, in addition to Danielle's $25,000 in liability coverage for a total personal injury recovery of $1,100,000. To learn more about stacking Virginia underinsured motorist coverage, click here.
Walter Shaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics under Obama and, for a short period of time, under Trump, compared the Ricchetti brothers' situation to an instance from the Trump years.
Objectives: To examine whether mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of children with 1 of 4 types of pediatric LTCs have higher rates of health care encounters, diagnoses, and prescriptions compared with families of children without these conditions.
Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study included US families with commercial insurance coverage from a single carrier. Children who had 1 of 4 LTCs (substantial prematurity, critical congenital heart disease, cancer, or a condition resulting in severe neurologic impairment) were identified by a diagnosis in their insurance claim data between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2016. Each case child and their family was matched with up to 4 control children and their families based on the age of the case and control children. Data were analyzed between August 2020 and March 2021.
Main outcomes: Rates of occurrence of health care encounters, physical and mental health diagnoses, and physical and mental health medication prescriptions, identified from insurance claims data, were compared between case and control families using a multivariable negative binomial regression model. The statistical analysis adjusted for observed differences between case and control families and accounted for clustering at the family level.
Results: The study included 25 528 children (6909 case children [27.1%] and 18 619 control children [72.9%]; median age, 6.0 years [IQR, 1-13 years]; 13 294 [52.1%] male), 43 357 parents (11 586 case parents [26.7%] and 31 771 control parents [73.3%]; mean [SD] age, 40.4 [8.1] years; 22 318 [51.5%] female), and 25 706 siblings (7664 case siblings [29.8%] and 18 042 control siblings [70.2%]; mean [SD] age, 12.1 [6.5] years; 13 114 [51.0%] male). Overall, case mothers had higher rates of the composite outcome of health care encounters, diagnoses, and prescriptions compared with control mothers (incident rate ratio [IRR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.54-1.68), as did case fathers compared with control fathers (IRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.46-1.64). Sisters of children with LTCs had higher rates of the composite outcome compared with sisters of children without LTCs (IRR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.55-1.82), as did brothers of children with LTCs compared with brothers of children without LTCs (IRR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.56-1.85).
Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers who had a child or sibling with 1 of 4 types of LTCs had higher rates of health care encounters, diagnoses, and medication prescriptions compared with families who did not have a child with that condition. The findings suggest that family members of children with LTCs may experience poorer mental and physical health outcomes. Interventions for parents and siblings of children with LTCs that aim to safeguard their mental and physical well-being appear to be warranted.
Defendant Globe Indemnity Company, is an insurance corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware having its principal place of business in the State of North Carolina, and is licensed by the Insurance Department of the State of New York.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 26, 1997, seeking insurance coverage under a policy issued by Globe to Associated Limousine & Livery Service, Inc. ("Associated") with respect to two underlying actions pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Seth Lewis, Debbie Lewis and Daniel Braverman v. Mark Diagonette, NYNEX, Associated Limousine, Ernest Riggio and Garlick Funeral Home, Index No.: 133670/94 (the "Lewis Action"), and Philip Levy and Marilyn Levy v. Bernard S. Simon, Walter B. Cooke, Inc. f/k/a Boulevard-Riverside Chapels, Inc. d/b/a Boulevard-Riverside Chapels, SCI Funeral Services of New *296 York, Inc. f/k/a Schwartz Brothers Memorial Chapel, Inc. d/b/a Schwartz Brothers-Jeffer Memorial Chapel, Vito Pepitone and Limousines Associated, Index No.: 31423/93 (the "Levy Action").
It is well settled in New York that "an insurer's duty to defend its insured arises whenever the allegations in a complaint state a cause of action that gives rise to a reasonable possibility of recovery under the policy." Fitzpatrick v. American Honda Motor Co., 78 N.Y.2d 61, 65, 571 N.Y.S.2d 672, 575 N.E.2d 90 (1991) (citing Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., 74 N.Y.2d 66,73, 544 N.Y.S.2d 531, 542 N.E.2d 1048 (1989)); see also, Ogden Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 924 F.2d 39, 41 (2d Cir.1991). Thus, whether an insurer has a duty to defend can be *298 determined by comparing the allegations made in the complaint to the terms of the insurance policy. See Meyers & Sons Corp. v. Zurich American Insurance Group, 74 N.Y.2d 298, 546 N.Y.S.2d 818, 545 N.E.2d 1206 (1989); Zurich-American Insurance Cos. v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Cos., 139 A.D.2d 379, 531 N.Y.S.2d 911 (1988), aff'd, 74 N.Y.2d 621, 541 N.Y.S.2d 970, 539 N.E.2d 1098 (1989). Moreover, the allegations of the complaint are to be "liberally construed" to determine whether the claim is within the coverages of the policy. Ruder & Finn Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Company, 52 N.Y.2d 663, 670, 439 N.Y.S.2d 858, 861, 422 N.E.2d 518 (1981). 041b061a72