- Obtained summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia where the insured sought reimbursement for $10 million in defense expenses associated with defending against a claim made against it by a group of former shareholders. The district court ruled that there was no coverage due to operation of three different exclusions in the D&O Policy. The court also rejected the Insured’s argument that under the recent Georgia Supreme Court case, Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Company, two of these defenses were waived. The Langdale Company v. National Union, Case No. 1:12-cv-2422 (N.D. Ga. 2014).
- Obtained summary judgment in insurance coverage dispute in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia in a case concerning a claim brought under both a CGL policy and an excess policy. The claim for coverage arose out of litigation brought by the purchaser of industrial equipment, who alleged that the insured had improperly constructed and installed certain equipment. The insured alleged that it was entitled to recover under the policies because the insurer failed to provide adequate notice of its reservation of rights in defense of underlying litigation. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit rejected the insured’s arguments, holding that the insurer’s reservation was sufficient to prevent waiver. Wellons, Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Company, 931 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (N.D. Ga. 2013), aff’d 566 Fed. Appx. 813 (11th Cir. 2014).
- Obtained summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute in federal court in the Middle District of Georgia in a case regarding a medical professional liability insurance policy. The policy at issue was a physicians’ policy, specifying that a number of physicians employed by the hospital were the Named Insureds. The hospital was added to the policy as an Additional Insured, but only to the extent that the hospital was legally responsible for professional services (i.e., medical treatment) provided by one of the physicians insured under the policy. The hospital sought coverage for a negligent credentialing claim. The Court ruled, as a matter of law, that there was no coverage for the hospital under the policy because the credentialing activities of the hospital did not fit within the coverage provided under the Additional Insured endorsement. The case also involved the issue of whether the “single limit” provision of the policy barred the hospital’s claim and whether the insured gave late notice of the claim. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co. v. Columbus Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 4:11-CV-153 CDL, 2012 WL 6693741 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 21, 2012).
- Obtained summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute in federal court the Northern District of Georgia in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The suit was brought by the trustee of a bankrupt investment management company that turned out to be a massive Ponzi scheme. Hundreds of investors made proof of claim filings in the bankruptcy court, seeking return of their investments. The trustee sought coverage under an investment management insurance policy. The District Court (adopting findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the Bankruptcy Court) ruled that the policy was subject to rescission because the company concealed that fact that it was a Ponzi scheme. The Court made this ruling even though there was a fact issue as to whether the company representative who secured the policy was aware of the illegal activities at the time he applied for a renewal of the policy. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that under Georgia law, the insurer need not prove that the misstatement or omission was made with intent to deceive or even knowledge of its falsity. If the statement is objectively false, the subjective belief of the insured is irrelevant. Perkins v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 1:12-CV-3001-TWT, 2012 WL 6197087 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2012).
- Represented a group of insurers in a payment dispute regarding a loss-sensitive workers’ compensation and general liability insurance program from the 1990s. The dispute involved the insurers’ ability to draw on collateral for certain time-barred amounts due under the program, as well as the insured’s assertion of negligent claims handling with respect to certain of the workers’ compensation claims. At the trial court level, obtained summary judgment on the negligent claims handling allegations. Williams Serv. Group, LLC v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 1:09-CV-832-TWT, 2011 WL 2489952 (N.D. Ga. June 20, 2011), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 11-14999, 2012 WL 5233558 (11th Cir. Oct. 23, 2012). On appeal, obtained a ruling in favor of the insurer regarding its ability to draw on collateral for past due amounts due, notwithstanding the running of the statute of limitations. Williams Serv. Group, LLC v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 11-14999, 2012 WL 5233558 (11th Cir. Oct. 23, 2012).
- Obtained summary judgment on behalf of an insurance client based on the insured’s failure to provide timely notice of the claim. DS Waters of America v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., 2011 WL 1743716, No. 1’09-CV-1819-TWT (N.D. Ga May 5, 2011).
- Defended a national bank accused of mortgage fraud, obtaining summary judgment on all counts.
- Obtained a settlement for a major insurance company on a coverage dispute involving a multi-million dollar real estate Ponzi scheme.
- Obtained a settlement for a medical start-up company accused of making fraudulent transfers.