Air Lease Corporation, et al v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s Syndicate 1969, et al., Case No. 22STCV39411 (and Related Cases 23STCV00680 and 23STCV04790) in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, CA (Three related actions involving Aviation Insurance respecting aircraft and related assets detained in Russia following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreements).
Advice to national pharmacy chain regarding coverage under Privacy Injury Cover, Media Liability Cover, Privacy Event Expense Cover, Professional Liability Cover, Umbrella & Excess Cover, and Crime Cover in connection with former employee’s theft (and possible disclosure) of personal medical information.
Advice to LLC concerning coverage under Healthcare Facilities & Providers Plus policy for two lawsuits alleging bodily injury sustained at clinics.
Advice to California grocery chain concerning coverage under Employment Practices Liability Policy for lawsuit brought by former employee.
Representation of power generator in connection with claim under London Market “Outage Insurance Policy” following Winter Storm Elliott; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement).
Representation of technology company seeking coverage for alleged wire fraud loss under Social Engineering Coverage part of Commercial Crime Insurance policy.
Robindale Export, LLC v. Tokio Marine KILN Insurance Ltd., Case No. 3024 of 2020 in the Court of Common of Westmoreland County, PA (action involving coverage for lost cargo under Ocean Marine Open Cargo Insurance Policy; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement).
Advice to financial services company specializing in purchasing structured settlement, annuity payments and lump-sum lottery payments under “Bankers Edge Bankers Professional Liability Coverage” in connection with putative class action alleging causes of action under RICO, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Dein Properties, LP v. The Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 4102 Civil 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, PA (coverage action under first-party Property Insurance policy for water damage caused by frozen pipes; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement).
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al. v. United States Steel Corporation, et al., No. GD 12-000409 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, PA (claim seeking coverage under London Market policies covering period from 1979-1980 for long-tail environmental liabilities under stemming from operations in Gary, Indiana; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreements).
Mine Safety Appliances Company v. North River Insurance Company (No. G.D. 10-007432 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania): Verdict comprising $10.9 million in compensatory damages and $46.9 million in statutory bad faith damages ($30 million in punitive damages, $11.4 million in attorneys’ fees and court costs, and $5.8 million in prejudgment interest).
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.
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 in claim 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.
Standard Steel, LLC v. Nautilus Insurance Company (No. 08-CV-00195 FXC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania): Action involving coverage for property damage arising out of train derailment; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement after court denied insurer’s motion to dismiss, finding that an excess verdict is not a condition precedent to an action under Pennsylvania’s “bad faith” statute.
United States Steel Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company (Consolidated Actions No. 02-2108, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania): Action involving premium obligations for longtail liabilities covered by terminated self-insured workers’ compensation bonds; resolved pursuant to confidential settlement agreement after court entered summary judgment in favor of principal on ground that principal had no obligation to pay additional premiums.