Harvard can't force insurer to cover $15 mln in race-case defense costs - judge - Reuters.com

(Reuters) - A national justice connected Wednesday ruled Harvard University waited excessively agelong to inquire an insurer to screen up to $15 cardinal of its expenses from defending its race-conscious admissions policies successful a high-profile lawsuit present earlier the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs successful Boston ruled successful favour of a portion of Zurich Insurance Group Ltd conscionable 2 days aft the nation's precocious tribunal heard a lawsuit involving Harvard that could spell the extremity of the information of contention successful assemblage admissions.

The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Ivy League school, represented by Marshall Gilinsky of Anderson Kill, did not respond to a petition for comment.

Harvard sought sum from its superior insurer, an AIG Inc unit, soon aft a suit was filed successful 2014 alleging that its adoption of race-conscious admissions policies that assistance Black and Hispanic applicants discriminate against Asian Americans.

The race-based suit contends Harvard's actions violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That lawsuit was filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a radical founded by affirmative enactment hostile Edward Blum. It besides filed a akin lawsuit against the University of North Carolina, which the Supreme Court heard connected Monday with Harvard's.

In the lawsuit against Zurich filed past year, Harvard said the costs of defending the pupil group's situation and a related authorities probe had already exceeded the $25 cardinal bounds successful AIG's policy, which had a $2.5 cardinal deductible.

Harvard said defence costs exceeding those limits should person been covered by its secondary insurer Zurich, but the insurer refused, saying the argumentation required Harvard to springiness announcement of a assertion nary aboriginal than Jan. 30, 2016, yet the assemblage waited until May 23, 2017 to bash so.

Harvard's lawyers countered that Zurich "surely knew" astir the high-profile lawsuit and "technical noncompliance" with the announcement request should not supply Zurich with an "escape hatch."

But successful a four-page ruling, Burroughs said it was "clear that Zurich’s deficiency of prejudice, oregon constructive, oregon adjacent existent cognition would not alteration Harvard’s work to supply announcement successful afloat compliance with the presumption of the Policy."

Harvard's ineligible expenses dwarf that of Students for Fair Admissions, which has spent little than $8 cardinal pursuing the cases, taxation filings show. UNC said it had incurred $24.4 cardinal successful expenses done mid-July.

Harvard is being represented successful the contention lawsuit by lawyers astatine Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr including Seth Waxman, who argued for it during Monday's Supreme Court proceedings.

The lawsuit is President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Zurich American Insurance Co, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 21-cv-11530.

For Harvard: Marshall Gilinsky, Ethan Middlebrooks and Jade Sobh of Anderson Kill

For Zurich: Andrew Margulis and Andres Avila of Ropers Majeski; and Paul Muniz of Donovan Hatem

Read more:

Harvard says didn't request to notify insurer astir Asian favoritism lawsuit

U.S. Supreme Court conservatives thin against race-conscious pupil admissions

Harvard says defence costs apical $25 cardinal successful affirmative enactment case

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.