Menu

David Cutter represents insurers in complex coverage litigation nationwide. He handles disputes across a wide range of product lines, including management and professional liability, commercial general liability, automobile and commercial transportation and property coverages. 

Over the past six years, David has served as lead counsel in more than 150 litigated matters in state and federal courts across over 30 states, as well as in domestic and international arbitration forums. He has secured favorable outcomes through early dispositive motions, targeted discovery and summary judgment, trial by jury and on appeal.

Known for his practical approach, David views litigation as a tool to close claims, and clients value his ability to creatively use focused litigation strategies to drive resolution. When cases cannot be resolved, David’s breadth of trial and appellate experience allows him to efficiently deliver strong results.

In addition to litigation, David advises insurers on complex coverage issues, defense and settlement obligations, helping evaluate underlying exposures and develop unique strategies to close claims efficiently.

David is consistently recognized by Chambers, The Legal 500, Best Lawyers and Super Lawyers as a leading commercial lawyer. According to client feedback published by Chambers, David “understands the insurance coverage world inside and out. He is very effective in advocating for our company's positions.” He “is an excellent lawyer and advocate for his client" and “is respected in the field as an excellent litigator.” David is “responsive and knowledgeable about insurance coverage.” 

Representative Matters

IMEG Corp. v. Atl. Specialty Ins. Co., 2025 WL 962961 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2025). Securing judgment on the pleadings that the insured’s voluntary governmental disclosures regarding potential legal violations were not covered under the D&O policies – because of claims-made-and-reporting deficiencies, because certain disclosures did not qualify as “Claims,” and because the settlement did not constitute insurable loss. 

Arch Ins. Co. v. PCH Mgmt. Alpha, LLC, 2024 IL App (1st) 230738-U, 1, appeal denied, 260 N.E.3d 89 (Ill. 2025). Affirming the grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings for management liability insurer because the claim was interrelated with a prior-period claim that had not been reported and was independently barred by the prior-or-pending litigation exclusion, and denying the insured’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

Pavilion Construction, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., Case No. D-202-CV-2022-05946 (N.M. Dist. Ct., Bernalillo Cnty. Dec. 2024). Granting the motion to dismiss a direct action filed by an underlying claimant in a construction defect dispute against a professional liability carrier asserting unfair claims practices and bad faith claims.

U.S. Tobacco Cooperative, Inc. v. Axis Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. 5:23-cv-00374-BO-BM (E.D.N.C. July 18, 2024). Granting the motion to dismiss certain claims seeking defense and indemnity from a management liability insurer in a dispute involving members of the insured’s tobacco sellers price stabilization cooperative, seeking the return of accumulated reserves based upon statute of limitations grounds, and dismissing all of insured’s bad faith claims.

The Hanover Ins. Co. v. Heyden Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 23-A-08684-8 (Ga. Super. Ct.,GwinnettCnty. April 24, 2024). Granting judgment on the pleadings on behalf of a management liability insurer in a declaratory judgment action, with the Court holding that coverage was barred by the employment-related exclusion.

Karl McIntosh v. Allied World Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-0522-CFC (D. Del. March 18, 2024). Entering a jury verdict confirming that the professional liability insurer properly rescinded a medical malpractice policy.

U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. City of Youngstown, 2023 WL 5984168, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 2023). Granting summary judgment in favor of the municipal liability insurer, finding that the insured’s violation of the CGL policy’s notice and reporting provisions caused legal prejudice and therefore barred coverage.

Hanover Ins. Co. v. R.W. Dunteman Co., 51 F.4th 779, 782 (7th Cir. 2022). Affirming the trial court’s ruling that the management liability policy did not apply because the claim was made during the first of two successive policy periods but was not reported until the second policy period.

Rimini St., Inc. v. AXIS Ins. Co., 2022 WL 17487749 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2022). Granting motion to dismiss on behalf of a professional liability insurer based upon the application of the prior or pending litigation exclusion.

Alain Dery v. Aviva Ins. Co. of Canada, No. 49D01-2202-PL-004720 (Ind. Comm. Ct. October 17, 2022). Granting motion to dismiss the action against Canadian insurers due to a lack of personal jurisdiction.

Morris v. Arch Ins. Co., 2022 WL 507474 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2022). Granting summary judgment finding that the insured was not entitled to UIM coverage based upon the choice of law and effective rejection of certain higher limits.

XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. AR Capital, LLC, 2021 WL 353853 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 2, 2021). Granting summary judgment in favor of a management liability insurer, concluding that coverage was barred because the insureds acted outside their insured capacities, the capacity exclusion applied, and certain settlement amounts constituted uninsurable disgorgement.

XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. AR Capital, 181 A.D.3d 546, 121 N.Y.S.3d 269, 270 (2020). Affirming the trial court’s denial of the insured’s motion to dismiss the action in lieu of a competing Delaware action.

Hanover Ins. Co. v. MRC Polymers, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 192337. Affirming the trial court’s rulings that the management liability policy’s products and services exclusion barred coverage.

RLI Ins. Co. v. Acclaim Res. Partners, LLC, 2020 IL App (4th) 190757-U. Affirming the trial court’s ruling that a contractual fee dispute did not trigger coverage under a professional liability policy because there was no “wrongful act.”

AR Capital, LLC v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2020 WL 4907990 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 3, 2020). Securing a stay of the Delaware action based on the pendency of a competing New York action.

U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Vill. of Melrose Park, 455 F. Supp. 3d 681 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Finding that the municipal policy’s prior and pending litigation exclusion barred coverage.