Matthew J. Fink
Partner

E-mail: mfink@batescarey.com
Phone: (312) 762-3139

Practice Areas:

Matthew J. Fink is a partner concentrating on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. He counsels clients on a wide variety of insurance coverage and related matters, as well as policy drafting. Mr. Fink focuses his insurance practice on a wide spectrum of areas involving insurance coverage for environmental and mass toxic tort claims, financial institution liability, securities fraud, product liability, professional malpractice, construction defects, and claims against public entities and not-for-profit corporations. He has successfully resolved complex coverage disputes wherein the policyholders sought multi-million dollar verdicts.

It is Mr. Fink’s philosophy to position a claim, whether prior to or during litigation, for early resolution through creative settlements, mediation, or by way of summary judgment. In this fashion, he has been able to obtain favorable outcomes for his clients in a cost-effective manner. For example, Mr. Fink obtained summary judgments for his clients in cases of first impression in Illinois and Florida involving claims for failure to settle within policy limits. He has also tried coverage cases to verdict when a business resolution was not practical.

Mr. Fink represents insurance companies in appeals in federal and state courts throughout the country. He has argued appeals in the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, as well as the Illinois Appellate Court and other state appellate courts.

His successes include:

Illinois National v. Banc One, (N.D. N.Y., Dec. 29, 2008)

Summary judgment in favor of client based on late notice.

Gallina and Horne Bros., et al. v. Commerce & Industry, (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2008)

Reconsideration motion pending. Summary judgment in favor of client where claimant attempted to enforce a $7 million consent judgment without client’s consent and sought $70 million in punitive damages for bad faith failure to settle.

Walgreen v National Union, (Cir. Ct. Cook County, IL, July 7, 2008)

Summary judgment in favor of client for advertising injury coverage for a patent infringement claim involving automated telephony system.

Gateway Hotel Holdings v. Lexington, (Missouri Cir. Ct., July 4, 2007)

Appeal pending. Summary judgment in favor of client in case of first impression in Missouri wherein Court enforced athletic participants exclusion to exclude coverage for a claim that the insured failed to provide adequate medical care to a boxer after the fight.

Ryerson Tull v. Illinois National, (Cir. Ct. Cook County, IL, Feb. 14, 2006)

Appeal pending. The court granted summary judgment finding that policyholders’ $15 million settlement was not in anticipation of liability for covered damages. The court also dismissed the insured’s bad faith claim.).

Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. American Home Assur. Co., (N.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2004)

Court granted summary judgment in favor of client, dismissing a $20 million claim that the client failed to settle an underlying railroad crossing accident, which resulted in a verdict of $54 million.

Travelers Ins. Co., et al. v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 278, 757 N.E.2d 481 (Ill. 2001)

Obtained favorable holding that property damage coverage is triggered only by an actual leak in a polybutylene pipe; and that replacement cost for a pipe that has not leaked is not covered by CGL policy.

Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc., 2000 WL 1875875 (Ill.App.Ct. Dec. 22, 2000)

Appellate Court reversed a $5.5 million judgment holding that the known loss/loss in progress doctrines precluded coverage and that insurer did not breach its duty to defend.

Coregis Ins. Co. v. Wallace & Tetreault, (11th Cir. Nov. 9, 2000)

Summary judgment granted under prior knowledge exclusion, wherein court also rejected the insured’s arguments regarding the insurer’s purported bad faith conduct and insured’s waiver and estoppel defenses.

EWC Contractors v. National Union, (Cir. Ct. Cook County 2000)

Summary judgment granted finding that insurer did not breach duty to defend and did not violate Illinois Ins. Code Section 155 with respect to a construction defect claim.

Homsey Architects v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co., (Del.Sup.Ct. 2000)

The court ruled on two issues of first impression in Delaware, finding that: (i) no showing of prejudice is required under a claims made and reported policy; and (ii) information regarding a potential claim contained in an application for insurance can not constitute notice of a potential claim.

American Simmental Ass’n. v. Coregis, 75 F.Supp.2d 1023 (D.Neb. 1999)

The court found primary CGL carrier breached its duty to defend under advertising injury coverage and held that client was entitled to indemnity for defense costs paid under its policy.

Coregis Ins. Co. v. Bartos, Broughal & Devito, 37 F.Supp.2d 391 (E.D.Pa.1999)

Summary judgment granted under business risk exclusions.

Mt. Airy Ins. Co. v. Greenbaum, 127 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1997)

Summary judgment granted under business risk exclusions.

Mr. Fink frequently lectures and conducts in-house workshops for clients on insurance coverage topics tailored to his clients’ needs. He most recently presented on the topics of attacking policyholders’ claims of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, risk shifting strategies, advertising injury coverage, and the duty to defend issues.

Mr. Fink is licensed to practice in Illinois and is currently admitted to practice before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Eighth Circuits and before the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois, the Northern District of Indiana, and the Eastern District of Michigan.

Mr. Fink received a J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law in 1989 and a B.A. in History, cum laude, from Middlebury College in 1986.