Theresa M. Carroll is an associate who practices in the area of insurance coverage, coverage litigation, general commercial litigation, and reinsurance. Theresa advises clients on a variety of complex issues involving primary and excess general liability, first party property, third party casualty, and bad faith claims. Theresa has litigated insurance coverage and commercial disputes in federal and state courts across the country, and also advises clients on reducing and avoiding liability outside the context of litigation. Theresa also contributes to the firms’ Opioid Coverage Task Force, which analyzes insurance coverage issues arising from nationwide litigation against manufacturers, distributors, and retail pharmacies involved in developing and distributing opioids.

Theresa also has experience in personal injury defense and maritime law, having represented members of the inland marine industry in Jones Act disputes, marine insurance matters, and mergers and acquisitions.

Theresa graduated cum laude from Washington University School of Law, where she was president of the Environmental Law Society and was a student attorney with the Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic. Theresa’s legal internship experiences include doing environmental enforcement work for the U.S. Department of Justice and working for the White House Center for Environmental Quality during a semester in Washington, D.C.

Representative Matters

Richards Building Supply I, LLC v. The North River Insurance Company, 1:16-cv-09053 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). Theresa was the principal author of separate winning summary judgment motions arguing that North River did not owe a duty to defend or a defend to indemnify its insured, a tenant of warehouse destroyed by fire, in connection with Potentially Responsible Party letter issued a U.S. Environmental Protection Act for cleanup of pollutants released by the fire. The court agreed that under Illinois law, a PRP letter is not a “suit” triggering a duty to defend, and policy’s commercial general liability coverage did not provide indemnity where the tenant had not been asked to pay anything.