Member Info for Looed

tsbs1 - he gave us the lawyer's contact info so I don't think that's an issue. I would say if its fake then we don't need to waste time on it. If it is true, then the poster can rest assured that his reputation won't be questioned and we should be able to accept his postings at face value. If he is here to help us he should surely understand the need for this. Otherwise he would have redacted the contact info etc

PJohn - I contacted the Arbitration Board to ask what happens if one side releases an Award without permission - but was when it was only on the GOGC website and in the press and before we saw the PDF. All recent emails have been between FSGH and Puddy about the Fund.

And should I cc Zaza as there is an email on the letter to GOGC

PJohn - do you mean to this lawyer ? Not yet. I only wrote to him in response to the first posts by JJCarter and what welloiled found. I just asked if he could confirm if he is still representing FRR.

Cheers guys - it's 1.30am in Houston so I will see how people feel and if we get any suggestions and will aim to send around 8am Houston time.

Assuming Linsenmayer is the current Counsel, I think we should update him on what has been shared with us from the PDF to these letters. It's unlikely he will discuss aspects of the case with us but If the letters etc are fake he should be able to say so without giving anything else away. Thats my laymen's view anyway.

Feel free to add / edit anything and I will change and repost any final version.

Dear -

REF: Your letter of May 8, 2020, to Mr Nicandros, and other documentation

Further to my recent email in which I informed you that I am a shareholder in Frontera Resources Corp (FRR) and that I am able to connect with many other shareholders.

On June 13, 2020, an anonymous person (P1) shared your profile page with us. This is why I sent my first email to you

Yesterday, June 14th 2020, P1 shared two letters with us and told us we would find them “interesting”

The first letter is dated May 8, 2020, from and signed by you to Mr Steve C. Nicandros. I am told it begins “Dear Steve, We refer to our correspondence of April 24, 2020, wherein we reviewed and commented upon your summary…” There are 2 pages discussing issues around the publication of the Arbitration Award in full, and related matters.

The second letter appears under the FRR letterhead and is dated May 14, 2020. It appears to be from and signed by Zaza Mamaulaisvili to Mr Tornike Gotsiridze, GOGC Coordination Committee requesting an “urgent meeting” and includes a 7-point agenda.

I can also advise you that on 9th June, 2020, an anonymous person (P2) shared a link claiming it would take us to the 154 page Arbitration Award. I am led to believe the document appears credible and ends with a “Dispositif”, (at P141) which concludes that FRR are in “material breach” of the PSA. The Award would appear to find in favor of the Claimants in most of their claims. This would appear to be completely at odds with recent FRR public statements regarding these matters.

We do not know if these document are real, fake or have been doctored.

We do not understand what has motivated P1 & P2 to share these documents.

We do not know if P1 and P2 are one in the same person.

As shareholders we obviously want what is best for the company. Given this, can you kindly offer some guidance in this matter?

Kind regards

Morning toatie I am just about to post the letter I want to send and see how folks feel about it, or if they want to add or edit anything.

That was exciting to wake up to, but a few, admittedly small, things stand out to me and give me pause:-

If you visit Taylor English website or the attorneys profile page you will see the logo is different to the one used on the letter - the letter doesn't have "the purpose built law firm" strap-line. As a trademarked logo I would expect consistency in branding. The address is blurred so its possible this part of the logo is as well.
https://www.taylorenglish.com/people-bryce-linsenmayer.html

The telephone number and email are the same as shown on Linsenmayers profile page.

I thought lawyers letters always had a file or case number reference for billing purposes? Is that always the case ?

The FRR address is the same as on the FRR website - but last November Oopsi posted that FRR had changed address. From Oopsi post 21/11/19 - "Frontera Resources US LLC changed its registered address from 3040 POST OAK BLVD. SUITE 1100 HOUSTON 77056 to 1201 LOUISIANA ST STE 2800, HOUSTON, 77002 on 20 March 2019." Does anyone know if it changed back or the move just didn't take place ? The letter from Zaza to GOGC also has the Post Oak Blvd address.

Does sharing this letter break the client-attorney privilege it repeatedly claims must be preserved.

What a pity we couldn't get to see the letter of April 24th '20 which would appear to contain specifics to support FRR's position

In the unlikely event the lawyer replies to me, how do people feel about me telling him we have the PDF and now these letters and see if it prompts a response ?

I just found a detail in the 73 page document that the Case Management was supposed to take place on 18th June. I cant cut and past its but its p12 of 30 in one of the bundles about 2/3rd of the way down, right after the ADR information sheet.

Morning Bezzy, Piscean and EkXoc - The last document in the chain that Puddy sent to me and was posted way earlier today shows Hope dismissing the case. Whether they did an OOCS or he threw in the towel or some other reason its hard to say. Hopefully Oopsi etc can take a look explain whats it means.

You should be able to find all the documents related to the San Mateo case here. That was exhausting!

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0

I am not going to cut and paste the next document as its 73 pages - it i s request from Lloyds that the case be moved from Civil Court to Federal Court -
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing t0 Policy No. B1636N1 81678 (“Hiscox” 0r “Defendant”) and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy N0. DFS-0000018-03 (“Pioneer”) filed a Notice 0f Removal of Action Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(B), and 1446 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy 0f the Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

There is lots of back and forth on the Parties and then this

15 . In the Complaint filed in the State Action, Plaintiffs state that they have submitted t0 Hiscox and Pioneer $941,224.33 in defense costs for reimbursement, and state that they seek t0 recover compensatory and punitive damages resulting from Pioneer’s alleged actions in an amount in excess of $1.5 million, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this coverage action. (Compl. 1H] 18, 52.) As such, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

Its signed by Lloyds and dated 26/3/20. Then there is a copy of the document I just posted. An order for mediation which seems didn't happen, some routine admin doc's,

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/DocumentViewer/DownloadDocumentFile/Download?d=xBS4U2u5j-kB50ukcX7V7A2&c=9-PitGDdFevZtZ01jO3NkQ2&l=OAnbw_NJUtNpoDqVVZ1qXw2&cn=MprXpZ3YnChso_JSsP2sUw2&fileName=20-CIV-00990%20-%20Removal%20to%20Federal%20Court&docTypeId=3

Pt.10
58. Such declarations are necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties’ dispute may be resolved and so that the parties may be aware of their respective rights and duties.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief — Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Does 1 Through 10)
59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 above.
60. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and 0n that basis alleged that Does 1 through 10 dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to coverage for the Actions. Therefore, an actual justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Does 1 through 10 concerning the mattered alleged herein. Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration as t0 the duties and obligations 0f Does 1 through 10. A declaration is necessary at this time in order that the parties’ dispute may be resolved and that they be aware 0f their respective rights and duties.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1. For damages according t0 proof at the time 0f trial, plus interest;

ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2. For damages according to proof at the time 0f trial, including reasonable attorneys
fees incurred in obtaining the benefits due under the Hiscox Policy, plus interest;

(it goes on in a similar way for 6 causes of action) and is signed and dated 18th Feb '20

Not sure if the link will work - https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/DocumentViewer/DownloadDocumentFile/Download?d=hYcFqzo3vrbt_CRIOCdgkg2&c=9-PitGDdFevZtZ01jO3NkQ2&l=OAnbw_NJUtNpoDqVVZ1qXw2&cn=MprXpZ3YnChso_JSsP2sUw2&fileName=20-CIV-00990%20-%20Complaint&docTypeId=3

Pt.9
52. As a direct and proximate result 0f Pioneer’s breach 0f the implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs has sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected t0 total $1,500,000, plus interest at the legal rate. Also, pursuant t0 Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813 (1985), Plaintiffs are entitled t0 recover all attorneys’ fees that it has reasonably incurred, and continues t0 incur, in its efforts t0 obtain the benefits due under the Pioneer Policy that Pioneer wrongfully has Withheld, and is Withholding, in bad faith. Plaintiffs are also entitled t0 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that Pioneer —acting through one 0r more if its officers, directors, 0r other corporate employees With substantial independent and discretionary authority over significant aspects 0f Pioneer’s business—performed, authorized, and/or ratified the bad-faith conduct alleged above.
54. Pioneer’s conduct is despicable and has been done with a conscious disregard 0f Plaintiffs’ rights, constituting oppression, fraud, and/or malice. Pioneer has engaged in a series 0f acts designed to deny Plaintiffs the benefits due under the Pioneer Policy. Specifically, Pioneer, by acting as alleged above, in light of information, facts, and relevant law to the contrary, consciously disregarded Plaintiffs’ rights and forced Plaintiffs t0 incur substantial financial losses, thereby inflicting substantial financial damage on Plaintiffs. Pioneer ignored Plaintiffs’ interests and concerns with the requisite intent t0 injure Within the meaning 0f California Civil Code section 3294. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled t0 recover punitive damages from Pioneer in an amount sufficient t0 punish and t0 make an example 0f Pioneer and t0 deter similar conduct in the future.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief — Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Pioneer and Hiscox)
55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21.
56. There presently exists an actual controversy between Plaintiffs, 0n the one hand, and Pioneer and Hiscox, 0n the other hand, concerning Pioneer and Hiscox’s obligations and duties owed t0 Plaintiffs pursuant to the Pioneer Policy and the Hiscox Policy. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Pioneer and Hiscox together owe a duty to pay all reasonable and necessary defense fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in the Actions, subject only t0 the applicable limits and deductibles of the Pioneer and Hiscox Policies. Pioneer and Hiscox dispute this contention.
57. Plaintiffs request ajudicial declaration of the respective rights and duties of Plaintiffs and Pioneer under the Pioneer Policy, as well as a judicial declaration 0f the respective rights and duties 0f Plaintiffs and Hiscox under the Hiscox Policy.

Pt.8
49. Instead 0f complying with these duties, Pioneer acted in bad faith by, among other things;
a. failing and refusing t0 pay defense fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in connection With the Action;
purporting to impose an arbitrary and improper allocation 0f defense fees and costs, instead ofpaying or reimbursing all defense fees and costs owed under the Pioneer Policy;
failing to promptly conduct a full and thorough investigation of the Actions and asserting grounds for denying and/or limited coverage based upon its inadequate investigation;
failing to fully inquire into possible bases that might support coverage for the Actions;
asserting grounds for limiting coverage for the Actions that it knows are not supported by, and in fact are contrary t0, the terms of the Pioneer Policy, the law, insurance industry custom and practices, and the facts;
misrepresenting one or more material facts and/or Pioneer Policy provisions relating to coverage;
failing t0 effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement 0f Plaintiffs’ covered claim;
failing to promptly provide Plaintiffs With a reasonable explanation of the basis in law 0r fact for the denial of Plaintiffs’ claim;
refusing to affirm 0r deny coverage within a reasonable time;
taking a coverage position that is contrary t0 Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations of coverage;
giving greater consideration t0 its own interests than it gave Plaintiffs’ interests;
based 0n information and belief, failing t0 have appropriate claims handling guidelines and failing t0 consider and act in accord with the governing legal requirements; and
m. otherwise acting as alleged above.In breach of the implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Pioneer did the
50. things and committed the acts alleged above for the purpose 0f consciously Withholding from Plaintiffs the rights and benefits t0 Which it was and is entitled under the Pioneer Policy and California law.
51. Pioneer’s acts are inconsistent with the reasonable expectations 0f Plaintiffs, are contrary t0 established insurance industry custom and practice, are contrary t0 legal requirements, are contrary to the express terms 0f the Pioneer Policy, and constitute bad faith.
52. As a direct and proximate result 0f Pioneer’s breach 0f the implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs has sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected t0 total $1,500,000, plus interest at the legal rate. Also, pursuant t0 Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813 (1985), Plaintiffs are entitled t0 recover all attorneys’ fees that it has reasonably incurred, and continues t0 incur, in its efforts t0 obtain the benefits due under the Pioneer Policy that Pioneer wrongfully has Withheld, and is Withholding, in bad faith. Plaintiffs are also entitled t0 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.

Pt.7
3. Pioneer also had a duty under the Pioneer Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom and practice t0 promptly conduct a full and thorough investigation, including all bases that might support Plaintiffs’ claim for coverage for the Actions. Pioneer also had a duty t0 give at least as much consideration t0 Plaintiffs’ interests as it gave t0 its own interests in assessing coverage for the Actions.
44. Pioneer has breached the Pioneer Policy by, among other things:
a. failing t0 reimburse Plaintiffs under the terms of the Pioneer Policy for
defense costs incurred in the Actions;
b. purporting t0 impose an arbitrary and improper allocation 0f defense fees and
costs, instead of paying or reimbursing all defense fees and costs owed under the Pioneer Policy;
c. failing to promptly, fully, and thoroughly investigate Plaintiffs’ claim for coverage for the Actions;
d. failing t0 give at least as much consideration t0 Plaintiffs’ interests as it gave its own interests; and
e. otherwise acting as alleged above, all in breach 0f its duties under the Pioneer Policy.
45. As a direct and proximate result 0f Pioneer’s contractual breaches, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in an amount t0 be determined according t0 proof, plus interest at the legal rate. Plaintiffs continue t0 suffer damages because 0f Pioneer’s contractual breaches and will seek leave t0 amend this complaint once he ascertains the full extent 0f their damages.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach 0f Implied Covenant 0f Good Faith and Fair Dealing — Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Pioneer)
46. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 and 4O through 44 above.
47. Implied in the Pioneer Policy is a covenant that Pioneer would act in good faith and deal fairly with Plaintiffs, would do nothing to interfere with the right 0f Plaintiffs t0 receive benefits due under the policy, and would give at least the same level 0f consideration t0 Plaintiffs’ interests as it gave to its own interests.
48. Pioneer also had a duty under the Pioneer Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom, practice, and standards to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation, including all of the bases that might support Plaintiffs’ claim for coverage, before asserting coverage defenses 0r denying coverage for certain amounts claimed by Plaintiffs.

Pt.6
36. As a direct and proximate result 0f Hiscox’s breach 0f the implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Mr. Hope has sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest at the legal rate. Also, pursuant to Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813 (1985), Mr. Hope is entitled t0 recover all attorneys’ fees that he has reasonably incurred, and continues t0 incur, in his efforts t0 obtain the benefits due under the Hiscox Policy that Hiscox wrongfully has Withheld, and is Withholding, in bad faith. Mr. Hope also is entitled t0 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
37. Mr. Hope is informed and believes, and 0n that basis alleges, that Hiscox — acting through one 0r more if its officers, directors, 0r other corporate employees With substantial independent and discretionary authority over significant aspects 0fHiscox’s business —performed, authorized, and/or ratified the bad-faith conduct alleged above.
38. Hiscox’s conduct is despicable and has been done with a conscious disregard 0f Mr. Hope’s rights, constituting oppression, fraud, and/or malice. Hiscox has engaged in a series 0f acts designed to deny Mr. Hope the benefits due under the Hiscox Policy. Specifically, Hiscox, by acting as alleged above, in light 0f information, facts, and relevant law t0 the contrary, consciously disregarded Mr. Hope’s rights and forced Mr. Hope t0 incur substantial financial losses, thereby inflicting substantial financial damage 0n Mr. Hope. Hiscox ignored Mr. Hope’s interests and concerns With the requisite intent t0 injure Within the meaning 0f California Civil Code section 3294.
Therefore, Mr. Hope is entitled t0 recover punitive damages from Hiscox in an amount sufficient t0 punish and t0 make an example 0f Hiscox and t0 deter similar conduct in the future.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach 0f Contract — Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Pioneer)
39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 above.
40. In issuing the Pioneer Policy, Pioneer promised to provide insurance coverage,
including coverage for all insureds — including the Named Insured, Insured Organizations, and all Insured Persons as defined in the Pioneer Policy — in the event 0f a covered claim as defined Within the Pioneer Policy. At all times relevant to this action, the Pioneer Policy was in full force and effect.
41. Plaintiffs qualify as insureds under the Pioneer Policy. T0 the extent not waived 0r otherwise excused because of the acts and conduct of Pioneer, Plaintiffs have complied with all terms and conditions precedent in the Pioneer Policy. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to all benefits 0f insurance provided by the Pioneer Policy.
42. Pioneer had and has a duty under the Pioneer Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom and practice to pay defense fees and costs in connection With the Actions.

Pt.5
29. As a direct and proximate result 0f Hiscox’s contractual breaches, Mr. Hope has
sustained damages in an amount t0 be determined according t0 proof, plus interest at the legal rate. Mr. Hope continues t0 suffer damages because 0f Hiscox’s contractual breaches and will seek leave to amend this complaint once he ascertains the full extent of his damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied Covenant 0f Good Faith and Fair Dealing —
Mr. Hope’s Claim Against Hiscox)
30. Mr. Hope realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 and 23
through 28 above.
31. Implied in the Hiscox Policy is a covenant that Hiscox would act in good faith and
deal fairly With Mr. Hope, would d0 nothing t0 interfere With the right 0f Mr. Hope t0 receive benefits due under the policy, and would give at least the same level 0f consideration t0 Mr. Hope’s interests as it gave t0 its own interests.
b. failing and refusing t0 reimburse Mr. Hope under the terms of the Hiscox Policy for defense costs incurred in the Actions;
c. failing and refusing to provide coverage under the Hiscox Policy until Mr. Hope requested indemnity from FRC for the Actions (Which were initiated by FRC) despite the fact that Hicsox had n0 evidence that indemnity was owed by FRC or that FRC would stand behind any indemnity that was owed by it;
d. Withholding proceeds owed under the Hiscox Policy;
e. failing t0 promptly, fully, and thoroughly investigate Mr. Hope’s claim for
coverage for the Actions;
f. failing to give at least as much consideration t0 Mr. Hope’s interests as it
gave its own interests; and
g. otherwise acting as alleged above, all in breach 0f its duties under the Hiscox
Policy.
h. refusing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time;
j. taking a coverage position that is contrary t0 Mr. Hope’s reasonable expectations 0f coverage; giving greater consideration t0 its own interests than it gave Mr. Hope’s interests;
k. based 0n information and belief, failing t0 have appropriate claims handling guidelines and failing t0 consider and act in accord With the governing legal requirements; and
1. otherwise acting as alleged above.
34. In breach 0fthe implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Hiscox did the things
and committed the acts alleged above for the purpose 0f consciously withholding from Mr. Hope the rights and benefits to which he was and is entitled under the Hiscox Policy and California law.
35. Hiscox’s acts are inconsistent with the reasonable expectations 0f Mr. Hope, are contrary t0 established insurance industry custom and practice, are contrary t0 legal requirements, are contrary to the express terms of the Hiscox Policy, and constitute bad faith.

Pt.4
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach 0f Contract —Mr. Hope’s Claim Against Hiscox)
22. Mr. Hope realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 above.
23. In issuing the Hiscox Policy, Hiscox promised to provide insurance coverage for
directors 0f FRC in the event 0f a covered claim as defined Within the Hiscox Policy. At all times relevant to this action, the Hiscox Policy was in full force and effect.
24. Mr. Hope was sued in the Actions in his capacity as director for FRC for alleged actions for Which he is entitled to coverage under the Hiscox Policy. Mr. Hope has incurred and continues t0 incur substantial defense costs in defense 0f the Actions.
25. T0 the extent not waived 0r otherwise excused because of the acts and conduct 0f Hiscox, Mr. Hope has complied with all terms and conditions precedent in the Hiscox Policy. Therefore, Mr. Hope is entitled to all benefits 0f insurance provided by the Hiscox Policy.
26. Hiscox had and has a duty under the Hiscox Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom and practice to pay defense fees and costs incurred by Mr. Hope in connection with the Actions.
27. Hiscox also had a duty under the Hiscox Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom and practice t0 promptly conduct a full and thorough investigation, including all bases that might support Mr. Hope’s claim for coverage for the Actions. Hiscox also had a duty t0 give at least as much consideration t0 Mr. Hope’s interests as it gave t0 its own interests in assessing coverage for the Actions.
28. Hiscox has breached the Hiscox Policy by, among other things
a. wrongfully denying Mr. Hope benefits owed under the Hiscox Policy;b. failing and refusing t0 reimburse Mr. Hope under the terms of the Hiscox Policy for defense costs incurred in the Actions;
c. failing and refusing to provide coverage under the Hiscox Policy until Mr. Hope requested indemnity from FRC for the Actions (Which were initiated by FRC) despite the fact that Hicsox had n0 evidence that indemnity was owed by FRC or that FRC would stand behind any indemnity that was owed by it;
d. Withholding proceeds owed under the Hiscox Policy;
e. failing t0 promptly, fully, and thoroughly investigate Mr. Hope’s claim for
coverage for the Actions;
f. failing to give at least as much consideration t0 Mr. Hope’s interests as it
gave its own interests; and
g. otherwise acting as alleged above, all in breach 0f its duties under the Hiscox
Policy.

Pt.3

15. Five days later, on January 30, 2019, Pioneer acknowledged coverage for part 0f the Cayman Action.
16. On April 14, 2019, after dismissal of the Cayman Action, FRC and Frontera International Corporation (“FIC”) filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Northern District 0f California titled Frontera Resources Corporation v. Stephen Hope, Case No. 4: 19-CV-01996-DMR (N.D. Cal. 2019) (the “California Action”) against Mr. Hope, Outrider Management, and Outrider Onshore alleging that Mr. Hope — as a director for FRC — breached his fiduciary duties t0 FRC for the benefit 0f himself, Outrider Management, and Outrider Onshore. This lawsuit remains pending. A true and correct copy 0f the April 14, 2019, complaint in the California Action is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference.
17. Mr. Hope, Outrider Management, and Outrider Onshore timely reported the California Action t0 both Hiscox and Pioneer and sought coverage, respectively, under the Hiscox Policy and the Pioneer Policy.
18. In June 2019, after reviewing $941,224.33 in invoices that had been submitted for payment, Pioneer insisted on a biased allocation of the defense fees and costs claimed as of that point. Under the allocation unilaterally imposed by Pioneer, Pioneer asserted that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any insurance proceeds from Pioneer, despite Plaintiffs having a covered claim and incurring substantial defense fees and costs. Essentially, Pioneer’s biased allocation required Hiscox to pay 71.25% of the defense costs — leaving Pioneer to pay only 28.75% of defense costs. Conveniently, this allocation would have left nothing for Pioneer to pay after the applicable self- insured retentions and/or deductibles asserted by Pioneer. Plaintiffs continue t0 challenge Pioneer’s wrongful position, with n0 avail.
19. Plaintiffs were forced t0 engage coverage counsel t0 assist in recovering the insurance proceeds wrongfully denied and withheld by Hiscox and Pioneer.
20. Through the efforts 0f counsel, Plaintiffs were able t0 convince Hiscox that it its initial denial of coverage was incorrect. By letter, dated December 18, 2019, Hiscox acknowledged that unless FRC provided Mr. Hope indemnity by January 7, 2020, Hiscox would reimburse Mr. Hope for defense fees and costs incurred in connection with the Cayman Action and the California Action.