Menu

 

Ryan M. Henderson serves as coverage and litigation counsel to both domestic and international insurers in a variety of coverage matters. Ryan has represented insurers in state and federal courts throughout the United States in various matters involving general liability and professional liability coverage, including D&O, E&O, fidelity and EPL coverage. Ryan has also worked on matters involving bad faith, rescission, reformation in professional liability and commercial general liability insurance.

Ryan has extensive experience investigating complex claims and evaluating coverage and liability, monitoring claims and case oversight and resolution in areas, including D&O, lawyers E&O, insurance brokers E&O, title agents E&O, environmental, toxic tort, and product liability. He has considerable experience handling coverage issues arising out of consumer class actions, including those stemming from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Ryan also has extensive experience in general litigation matters and reinsurance disputes. 

Ryan represents clients in declaratory judgment actions related to these issues and also has experience in negotiating settlements on behalf of insurance clients. Ryan also works closely with clients on insurance matters that are not in litigation. He counsels clients on achieving successful resolution of such claims efficiently through alternative dispute resolution and without court action.

Representative Matters

The Hanover Insurance Company v. MRC Polymers, Inc., et al., 2020 IL App (1st) 192337.  Representing insurer in appeal that affirmed application of products and services liability exclusion to bar coverage. 

The Hanover Insurance Company v. R.W. Dunteman Company, et al., Case Nos. 20-1826 and 20-1830 (7th Cir.).  Representing insurer in appeal of declaratory judgment action seeking affirmance of district court ruling granting insurer summary judgment holding there is no coverage under D&O policies because of untimely reporting of claim.

TD Bank, N.A. v. Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd., Case No. CV-14-495750 (Ontario Super. Ct.).  Representing Bermudian insurer in breach of contract action seeking coverage under integrated risk policy providing Bankers Blanket Bond and Bankers Professional Liability coverage in connection with Rothstein Ponzi scheme. 

TD Bank, N.A. v. Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd., Case No. CV-19-2788 (Ontario Super. Ct.).  Representing Bermudian insurer in breach of contract action seeking coverage under integrated risk policy providing Bankers Blanket Bond and Bankers Professional Liability coverage in connection with Stanford Ponzi scheme.

Michael Graham v. The Hanover Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2018-0115 (Miss. Cir. Ct.).  Defending insurer in declaratory judgment action seeking coverage under a professional liability policy issued to a home inspection company.

CLS Investments, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., 2019 WL 4204326 (Superior Ct. of Conn.) Obtained summary judgment for insurer where the court held there was no duty to defend or indemnify where plaintiffs did not qualify as insureds under the policy.

The Marbella Condominium Assoc. v. RSUI Indemnity Co. , 2017 WL 395301 (S.D. Fla. 2017) Obtained judgment on the pleadings for D&O insurer on the Insured v. Insured exclusion.

Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Hilger, 838 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2016) Obtained reversal of district court ruling for professional liability insurer where the court held that the insurer was entitled to introduce evidence outside of complaints in underlying action to support position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify purported independent contractor in underlying fraud action.

RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Attorney’s Title Insurance Fund Inc., et al., 2016 WL 7042960 (M.D. Fla. 2016) Obtained summary judgment for D&O insurer where court found no duty to cover an underlying $40 million consent judgment arising from claims of real estate fraud because underlying claim shared same factual basis and was related to prior counterclaim that was “first made” before the policy’s inception. 

RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Desai, et al., 2014 WL 4347821 (M.D. Fla. 2014)Obtained partial summary judgment for D&O insurer where the court found that a search and seizure warrant/criminal investigation was not “a Claim for a Wrongful Act.”

Penzer v. Transportation Ins. Co., 509 F.Supp.2d 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2007)Obtained summary judgment for CGL insurer where the court held that insured's transmission of unsolicited commercial advertisements by facsimile in violation of the TCPA did not violate right to privacy within policy's advertising injury coverage.

Mallinckrodt v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 927 N.E.2d 347 (5th Dist. May 5, 2006), Environmental coverage action dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of insurers' competing action in another jurisdiction.