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.
