Harvard University's insurance broker, Marsh USA, has vehemently denied fault in the ongoing legal battle over Zurich American Insurance Co.'s refusal to cover litigation expenses related to the landmark Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) case. The insurance broker claims Harvard's tardiness in notifying Zurich is to blame for the coverage denial, adding a new layer of complexity to the already contentious lawsuit.

Insurance Broker In Harvard Admissions Tiff: Harvard's Late Complaint

In a bold move, Marsh USA filed a compelling argument on Friday, urging U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs to dismiss Harvard's breach of contract suit. The suit accuses Marsh of negligence, asserting that the insurance broker's failure to timely inform Zurich about the SFFA case resulted in the denial of coverage. However, Marsh contends that Harvard's complaint against them was itself filed more than a year after the expiration of the six-year statute of limitations on contract breach claims.

A Calculated Defense

Marsh, applying what they call "basic math" to the allegations, argued that the clock started ticking on the breach of agreement claim on January 30, 2016. This date is 90 days after the end of Zurich's policy period when Harvard was obligated to notify Zurich about the SFFA suit. Harvard, according to Marsh, failed to notify Zurich until the spring of 2017. New York law, applicable to the dispute, dictates that the clock begins at the time of the breach, not when the plaintiff discovers the injury.

The broker's mathematical equation extends to six years, with an additional 228-day tolling extension due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Marsh concludes that Harvard needed to file the suit or seek an extension by September 15, 2022. However, the voluntary tolling agreement between Harvard and Marsh was not reached until April 28, 2023 — seven months after the alleged expiration of the claims.

Insurance Broker In Harvard Admissions Tiff: Missed Opportunities and Alleged Negligence

Harvard, in its October 2023 suit against Marsh, claimed it had notified the broker of the SFFA case in 2014, expecting to soon reach Zurich's layer of coverage. The university accused Marsh of malpractice and breach of contract, asserting that the insurance broker failed to notify the excess insurer of the anti-affirmative action litigation. The lawsuit implies that Marsh, despite being informed, neglected its contractual and professional obligation to trigger immediate notice to the first-line insurer, AIG.

The Ongoing Battle

This legal skirmish is a result of the SFFA case, which saw the Supreme Court overturning its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. The ruling eliminated the consideration of race as a "plus factor" in college admissions. Harvard's attempt to force Zurich American to provide coverage was unsuccessful, with Judge Burroughs ruling in favor of Zurich.

Representatives for both parties were not immediately available for comment.