Representative Matters

Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 243 A.D.3d 838, 246 N.Y.S.3d 235 (2d Dep’t 2025). Successfully obtained affirmance of a judgment holding that an insurer had no duty to indemnify damages due to an assault.

Okun v. Pobuckra Props., LLC, No. 2023-000063, 2025 WL 989835 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2025). Challenged an adverse wrongful death judgment that imposed case-dispositive spoliation sanctions.

New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. TSG Ski & Golf, LLC, 128 F.4th 1337 (10th Cir. 2025). Successfully obtained affirmance for AIG insurers that no coverage was owed for an underlying lawsuit alleging the insureds knowingly published false statements in a debt-collection letter, based on policy exclusions for personal and advertising injury arising from publication of knowingly false material.

In re Alexion Pharms., Inc. Ins. Appeals, 339 A.3d 694 (Del. 2025). Successfully obtained reversal of a judgment against multiple D&O insurers by persuading Delaware’s high court that a later-filed securities lawsuit related back to an earlier SEC investigation, eliminating coverage under the D&O polices in effect when the securities lawsuit was filed.

Swan v. Villas Condo. Unit Owners’ Ass’n, 2024-Ohio-2313, 246 N.E.3d 1031. Successfully obtained affirmance of a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, even though the parties had failed to memorialize the agreement in writing.

Opioid Master Disbursement Tr. II v. ACE Am. Ins., 688 S.W.3d 690 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). Successfully secured affirmance of dismissal of an opioid-coverage lawsuit, with the court holding that the policies’ forum-selection clauses were mandatory and enforceable.

Gonzagowski v. Steamatic of Albuquerque, Inc., 533 P.3d 1068 (N.M. June 22, 2023) (Successfully persuaded New Mexico’s high court that the collateral source rule does not apply to a plaintiff’s post-judgment settlement with a co-defendant).

Tonoga, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 201 A.D.3d 1091, 159 N.Y.S.3d 252 (3d Dep’t 2022). Successfully secured affirmance for AIG insurers based on qualified and absolute pollution exclusions barring coverage for PFAS environmental contamination—the first published decision finding that PFAS chemicals qualify as irritants, contaminants or pollutants.

San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 809 F. App’x 407 (9th Cir. 2020). Successfully obtained reversal and entry of judgment for an umbrella/excess insurer, with the court holding that pre-1986 policies did not cover pre-suit claims and were subject to general aggregate limits for property damage losses.

Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hub City Enter., Inc., 808 F. App’x 705 (11th Cir. 2020). Successfully secured affirmance of judgment that the insurer owed no duty to defend a personal injury action, because the instrumentality of injury qualified as an “amusement device” under a policy exclusion.

Sanders v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 2019 IL 124565, 157 N.E.3d 463 (Ill. 2019). Successfully obtained a judgment holding that coverage under occurrence-based policies for malicious prosecution claims is triggered only at the time of wrongful charging, and not by subsequent retrials or exoneration.

Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 939 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2019). Successfully defended judgment refusing to expand Pennsylvania’s four-corners rule and confirming that faulty workmanship does not constitute an “occurrence.”

Schnabel Found. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 780 F. App’x 5 (4th Cir. 2019). Successfully secured affirmance of a judgment finding no coverage under a wrap-up excess policy for repair costs and delay damages arising from an insured’s faulty support of excavation work.

Busch Props., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 815 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir. 2016). Successfully obtained affirmance of a judgment that an insurer had no duty to indemnify a settlement, because the insured was not legally obligated to make the payment and no claims or lawsuits had been filed against the insured.

Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 57 N.E.3d 97 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). Successfully obtained affirmance of a $13 million judgment in defense costs and prejudgment interest, following reversal of an erroneous duty to defend ruling.

Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 988 N.E.2d 897 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). Successfully obtained reversal of a judgment for Chiquita, with the court holding that payments to Colombian terrorists were not accidental and that the injuries occurred outside the policies’ coverage territory.

Presentations

"To Certify or Not to Certify: Tips for Federal Appeals of Novel Insurance Coverage Issues," American Bar Association Litigation Section, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee (March 4, 2022).

“How Could That (Not) Be Covered? Truthiness And Coverage For False Claims Act Liability,” American Bar Association Litigation Section, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee (March 1, 2019).

“Mad Skillz: Professional Services Coverage and Exclusions In The High-Tech Era,” American Bar Association Litigation Section, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee (March 1, 2018).

“Shrunken Chickens, Neck Flanges, Pill Mills and Bacteria: New Cases Shed Light on Perennially Difficult Issues in Products-Related Coverage,” American Bar Association Litigation Section, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee (March 4, 2017).

“Adding an Appellate Specialist to the Trial Team: The Sooner, the Better,” Sedgwick’s Appellate Task Force Webinar (June 7, 2016).

“Appellate Pitfalls to Avoid When Presenting Your Coverage Case,” Chicago Bar Association, Insurance Law and YLS Insurance Coverage Committees (May 9, 2011).

Publications

“Recent Illinois Verdicts Reinforce Potency of Remittitur,” Law360 Expert Analysis (January 30, 2018)