Please fill in the blank with words list in below

This Report addresses the legal issues and claims against DD for the first quarter ending March 31, 2019.In this report I will address the claims made.On most of the claims we are covered by insurance.The policy is generally referred to as a (1) policy.I will address the procedures we need to follow to preserve the (2) of these claims by our insurance company.There are other claims which dealt with areas which DD decided not buy insurance to cover and for these claims DD will be (3).

The protection of coverage DD has is determined by the (4) which is a dollar amount.If a claim exceeds this dollar amount the (5) will be the responsibility of DD subject to caveats discussed below.I have looked at some of the claims made, and in a couple of the lawsuits multiple theories of recovery are included.In other words, in one case the plaintiff has sued DD for the unintentional tort of (6), which is a (7), but has also included an intentional tort claim.The later claim typically is not covered by our insurance because of the (8) of not wanting to directly or indirectly encourage the commission of intentional wrongful act.

I will quickly review what we should expect once we present or (9) to our insurance company a lawsuit which has both covered and uncovered claims or legal theories of recovery which in California are referred to as (10).One presented the insurance company will review the policy and first examine the (11) of the policy to determine the scope of coverage.However, that provision is not dispositive and the section of the policy which outlines (12) will also be reviewed.Those sections need to be reviewed in conjunction with each other to determine if (13) will be extended.Sometimes the insurance company is not prepared to make a definitive statement on whether the protection DD paid for by making its annual (14) will be granted.It is unlikely that coverage will be denied simply because the insurance company is uncertain of coverage because typically insurance companies do not want to be sued for (15).Denial of claims can render the insurance company liable to its insured which in our case is DD not only for damages to make the insured whole or (16), but also for additional damages to deter such conduct which damages are typically called (17) damages.

Therefore, rather the receiving a denial of coverage, DD should expect to receive a (18).The significance of this missive is that the insurance company is not prepared to extend full coverage and is not yet prepared to recognize its (19), but will recognize its (20).If this happens then the insurance company will find DD a lawyer who typically is referred to as (21), and will be paid by the insurance company in an amount generally referred to as (22).The insurance company will handle the litigation, but we should monitor what is occurring because the claim may or may not be covered.The interest of DD is to have the claim covered.However, it is in the insurance company's pecuniary interest not to have the claim covered.Although the lawyer hired for DD by the insurance company has a (23) to DD, sometimes the lawyer may have a conflict and DD may become concerned that DD's interests are not being protected.If this occurs, DD should be prepared to make an application to the California court where the action is pending for the appointment of (24).

Now that I have covered insurance issue I will address each of the claims.The first claim deals with a hotel DD built in San Francisco which needed to be demolished.The industry standard is to locate explosive in the abandoned building and ignite them in a predetermined sequence.The result is that the building falls onto itself or "pancakes," and the ruble is then removed.DD has done this many times before and has always followed industry standard.Unfortunately, after the explosives where ignited the building fell to the side causing considerable property damage and personal injury.DD did everything possible and all the experts and governmental regulators can find no fault with what DD did.Since we followed the requisite standard of care, I thought that no (25) claim could be successfully be brought, and I still believe that to be true.However, that unintentional tort is not the standard which will be applied.Instead the claim will be under the theory of (26) because DD was completing an (27) activity.

words:

Action w/in the course and scope of her employment

Administrative law

Assumption of the risk

Breach of that duty

Cause of action

Caused

Comparative negligence

Compensatory damages

Contributory negligence

Coverage

Coverage

Covered claim

Cumis counsel

Dram shop

Duty to defend

Duty to indemnify

Emotional distress

Excess above the limits

Exclusions

Fiduciary duty

First party bad faith

Foreseeable

Insurance defense counsel

Insurer

Insuring clause

Invitee

Landowner

Liability

Licensee

Magnitude

Negligence

Negligence

Negligence per se

Obviously intoxicated minor

Owed a duty of care

Panel rates

Personal injury or property damage

Policy Limits

Premises liability

Premium payment

Probability that a condition

Public Policy

Punitive

Res ipsa loquitor

Reservation of rights

Self-Insured

Server

Social host

Special relationship

Status

Strict liability

Tender

Trespasser

Ultra- hazardous

Unreasonably

verdict

voir dire

writs of execution