George L. Stewart, II

Partner

Education

  • Pennsylvania State University, The Dickinson School of Law, 1989, J.D.
  • Vanderbilt University, 1985, B.A.

Professional Admissions / Qualifications

  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

  • State Supreme Court - Pennsylvania
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - Third Circuit
  • U.S. District Court - Western District of Pennsylvania
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al. v. Steadfast Insurance Company, et al. (No. G.D. 08-6931 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania): Action involving coverage for alleged intellectual property infringement; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement.
Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company v. Wave Tec Pools, Inc. (Civil Action No. A05CA 498 SS, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas): Action involving coverage for product disparagement claim; summary judgment entered in favor of policyholder based on court’s finding that (1) insurer was obligated to defend a claim asserting Lanham Act violations, (2) the policy’s exclusion for intellectual property claims did preclude coverage for product disparagement claims, (3) product disparagement claims were not precluded from coverage under a “metatag” exclusion, and (4) “willfulness” and knowledge-based exclusions did not excuse the insurer’s defense obligation.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al. v. United States Steel Corporation (No. G.D. 12-000409 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania): Pending action involving coverage for environmental liabilities.
Cincinnati Insurance Companies v. Pestco, Inc. (No. Civ. A. 02-1204, 2004 WL 3403038 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2004)): Action involving coverage for alleged intellectual property infringement; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement after court entered summary judgment in favor of policyholder on grounds that (1) a claim for trade dress infringement involves “misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business” within a policy’s definition of "advertising injury," (2) a claim for trade dress infringement does not fall within an umbrella liability’s exclusion for trademark infringement, and (3) the "first publication" exclusion is, at a minimum, ambiguous and should be construed in favor of coverage.
International Communication Materials, Inc. v. Employer’s Insurance of Wausau (No. Civ. A. 94-1789, 1996 WL 1044552 (W.D. Pa. May 29, 1996)): Action involving coverage for alleged intellectual property infringement; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement after court entered summary judgment in policyholder’s favor on grounds that (1) the so-called “first publication exclusion” does not preclude advertising injury coverage for material that, though first published during the policy period, is similar to advertising material that was first published — as part of a comprehensive "advertising campaign" — prior to the policy's inception; and (2) “lost profits” awarded for Lanham Act trademark and trade dress violations are “damages” within the meaning of a standard commercial liability policy, the insurability of which is not precluded by public policy.
Koppers Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (No. G.D. 08-002698 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania): Action involving coverage for alleged coal tar pitch liabilities; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement.
Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company (No. H-99-064, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8690 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2000): Action involving coverage for “wrongful seizure” claim asserted under the Lanham Act; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement after court granted summary judgment in favor of policyholder on grounds that “wrongful seizure” claim constituted offense of “malicious prosecution” within policy’s definition of “personal injury.”
Mine Safety Appliances Company v. Century Indemnity Company (No. G.D. 06-13611 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania): Action involving coverage for toxic tort claims; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement after court entered summary judgment in policyholder’s favor, finding that the policies’ “other insurance” and “limit of liability” provisions did not reduce coverage for toxic tort claims asserted against policyholder.
North River Insurance Company v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, et al. (No. G.D. 10-007432 in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas): Pending action involving coverage for toxic tort claims.
Representation of Mutual Fund Family: Matter involving coverage under multiple Directors & Officers liability policies in connection with NYAG and SEC investigations into market timing, late trading and excessive fees and related civil suits; recovered $45 million in defense and indemnity.
Results: 1 - 10 of 13