The subcontractors and their insurers would not have scinified the agreement and therefore challenged it in violation of the cooperation clause. The court accepted the non-disclosure of the agreement against the cooperation clause. The Tribunal therefore rendered a judgment to the subcontractors and their insurers, depriving them of having to defend and compensate them and by granting them taxable costs and fees that must be paid jointly by the complaining owners. The Court of Appeal upheld this. Not only had the co-operation clause been violated, but the agreement was inoperative because it did not cross Morris`s borders. Damron`s agreements, as they are now called, generally include either a predetermined judgment or a withdrawal of the response, followed by an introduction of a default judgment, with a confederation, not to enforce the judgment against the defendant`s property. In addition, the defendant generally denies the plaintiff any breach and bad faith claim by the defendant against the insurer. If an insurer disputes the existence of coverage and refuses to defend itself, it is not entitled to inform in advance the intention of the parties to enter into a Damron agreement and it is not entitled to intervene in a late negotiation after the conclusion of the agreement. Before executing a Damron agreement, a plaintiff should carefully consider whether he or she sees damages at a late hearing or by provision. Violation of an insurer`s duty to defend an insured deprives him of the right to participate in a late hearing. [xi] Therefore, a delay proceeding may be an attractive means of determining damages, since the insurer will not contest the applicant`s evidence.

The amount of harm found by an independent fact-finding person in a delay proceeding is less likely to be considered fraudulent or collusive in a subsequent appeal to determine the validity of the agreement than the amount of a predetermined judgment. On the other hand, at a late hearing, an applicant is likely to have property damages less than an amount that would have been set by the parties, but which, in a subsequent proceeding involving the insurer, is still considered free of fraud or collusion. In general, a judgment gives the applicant much more control over the outcome. Unlike damnons and helmet agreements, Morris agreements require notice from the insurer before they can be executed. [xix] The amount of advance notice required depends on the circumstances, but it must be sufficient for the insurer to assess the situation and decide what to do next. The communication must not only inform the insurer of the date of the conclusion of the contract, but also inform the insurer of the terms of the proposed agreement. The most practical way is to negotiate the terms of the agreement and provide the insurer with a copy of the final form of the agreement. Once the required notification has been received, the insurer may revoke the reserve and, in this case, the case continues as if the insurer had defended unconditionally.

If the insurer meets the reserve, the insured can enter into the Morris contract without violating the co-operation clause. [xxi] At first glance, in a Morris configuration, it may seem attractive to seek damages at a default hearing in order to defend against subsequent allegations that a judgment is not appropriate.