Insurance Coverage Litigation

Advised an expert witness for U.K.-based insurance companies in a case brought in the U.K. courts by the insurers in connection with a multistate data breach enforcement action where the personal information of millions of consumers was exposed. Counsel was provided in regard to U.S. law concerning Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the data breach and data security statutes of the 40 states whose attorneys general filed complaints, and the potential insurability of penalties in each of the states. The settlement reached in the case was due in large part to the insurability analysis, which was key during negotiations.

Plaintiffs filed suit against client insurer for vexatious refusal to pay uninsured motorist benefits under a commercial auto policy. At issue was whether the insured was “occupying” his vehicle, as the term was defined in the policy, when he was hit by an unknown driver. Client insurer filed a motion for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the client’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs did not appeal.

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed a judgment dismissing a case against an insurance company client with prejudice as sanctions for failure to appear. The Eastern District stated the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing sanctions and dismissing the case.

Client company and its executives were sued by a former employee for various claims arising from allegations of sexual harassment. The client’s insurer denied coverage. After prevailing upon the insurer to withdraw its disclaimer, the insurer agreed to provide an unconditional defense and indemnity for the claims against the client.

Served as counsel to insured under lender’s policy successfully defeating bankruptcy trustee’s lien avoidance adversary complaint.

Secured summary judgment for insurer regarding in a high-stakes insurance coverage/vexatious refusal action arising from a class action. The plaintiff had sought more than $21 million from the insurer client ostensibly for damages incurred litigating and settling an $80+ million consumer class action suit alleging violations of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Secured summary judgment for insurer in a lawsuit challenging key language in the policy issued by the client. The plaintiff had filed suit arguing key language in the policy, which had been issued to thousands of policyholders, was ambiguous.

Obtained a defense verdict for our insurance client following a three-week trial. The plaintiff sought $3.1 million related to a consent decree where it agreed to clean up soil and groundwater contamination from a manufacturing site. The insurers asserted that the plaintiff knew about the contamination for decades and did not properly notify its insurers, and that prior claims had been made associated with the contamination without proper notice. The jury found in favor of the insurers on all claims.

Obtained win in the appellate court after tort plaintiff was unsuccessful in his trial court coverage challenges, centered on the concurrent proximate cause doctrine. The insurance client had Armstrong Teasdale take over the matter on appeal involving artful pleading by the plaintiff and close questions of Missouri law.

Part of the team that secured reversal in the Court of Appeals of a $10 million coverage ruling involving complex indemnity relationships and competing towers of insurance coverage. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of our insurance client based on applications of the anti-subrogation rule and the rule against circuitous actions.