Our dedicated team tries insurance coverage and bad faith cases and handles appeals for the world’s largest insurers and reinsurers in courts and ADR proceedings across the country. We also provide counseling and advice on complex coverage issues involving a full range of specialty and CGL matters. Our team is one of only a handful of nationally recognized groups that both counsels and tries to verdict complex insurance coverage disputes involving Fortune 100 companies.
Led by Ronald Schiller, who Chambers USA recognized as “someone who consistently wins big cases,” our team of more than 20 dedicated coverage lawyers makes Hangley Aronchick one of the go-to firms for trials and appeals for a broad range of insurers and reinsurers. As litigators who take several cases to trial every year, we have extensive start-to-finish experience in coverage and bad faith litigation, including the handling of post-trial motions and appeals, in some of the most difficult jurisdictions. Hangley Aronchick lawyers have provided coverage advice and tried cases around the country, handling matters in 25 states, as well as in London, the Cayman Islands, and Bermuda; since 2014, we have tried eight cases to verdict or decision, and have argued a dozen appeals in the state and federal appellate courts. We are devoted to insurance coverage matters including specialty lines (D&O, E&O, and Professional Liability), General Liability matters, reinsurance disputes, and bad faith litigation and counseling. We have broad experience in business products (D&O coverage and underlying disputes and E&O, whether professional liability coverage, managed care coverage, or other forms), fiduciary and fidelity claims, disputes involving brokers and auditors, GL policy litigation (especially with respect to long-tail exposure cases), and first-party property cases and related bad faith claims. Our representations commonly include cases with total-claim values in the hundreds of millions of dollars and involving recurring issues of related claims, disgorgement, and other contract based defenses.
Our insurance dispute resolution practice also includes representing insurers (and reinsurers) in arbitrations and mediations nationwide. In addition to litigation and dispute resolution, we are retained regularly to draft and review policy forms, provide coverage opinions, and to monitor claims, and our extensive litigation experience brings a unique perspective and added value to those engagements. We look at issues with a broad perspective to resolve not only the immediate problem but to provide guidance on what may arise in the future.
Meet Our Insurance Coverage TeamOur practice group is composed of more than 20 lawyers dedicated to solving complex insurance coverage issues. We are responsive, collaborative, thorough, and persistent, but we value complete commitment to excellence in client service above all other traits.
We are litigators who can handle all facets of a case from pre-litigation negotiations, though litigation, post-trial motions, and appeals throughout the country. We are quick to adapt to the constantly evolving legal landscape, and we are equally adept at providing strategic advice, monitoring claims, and drafting and reviewing policy wording.
We bring our deep understanding of all lines of coverage — developed over decades of litigation and appellate experience — to every matter for every client. The combination of broad industry experience, trial and appellate courtroom experience, and in-depth knowledge of insurance coverage sets us apart.
Healthcare Errors and Omissions/Professional Liability
Over the past decade, our team has developed one of the nation’s leading healthcare E&O and professional liability practices, uniquely providing both coverage advice and acting as trial counsel in numerous matters. Hangley Aronchick attorneys have been on the front lines in developing and litigating complex coverage positions, including pacing the industry on antitrust, RICO, and ERISA based defenses in the healthcare and managed care industries. Our institutional knowledge of the relevant primary and excess policy forms and provisions, as well as our frequent role as lead counsel in multi-party insurer cases, has afforded us both insight and standing among insurers writing this product line (and their outside counsel) that is second to none.
Representative matters include:
- Representation of Chubb and Swiss Re affiliates in UnitedHealth Group, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., in federal courts in New York and Minnesota arising out of claims by patients and physicians alleging state and federal causes of action for under-reimbursement for out-of-network UCR claims. Obtained summary judgment for our clients; appeal pending.
- Representation of Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. in Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. v. CIGNA. Obtained summary judgment on application of exclusion, won coverage trial and held appeal relating to $140 million claim for settlement of In Re MDL provider class actions.
- Representation of Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company in Aetna Inc. v. Lexington Insurance Co., et al. Claim pursued on behalf of Aetna for approximately $470 million on E&O policies for settlement of MDL provider class actions and related rescission trial.
- Representation of Chubb, Swiss Re, and Zurich affiliates in managed care coverage and bad faith litigation throughout the country, including successfully resolved actions against various Blue Cross and Blue Shield franchisees in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Illinois arising out of underlying managed care litigation brought by physicians and patients.
- Representation of Chubb, Swiss Re, Endurance, and Zurich affiliates on coverage matters relating to hospitals in several cities in which the insureds were sued for antitrust conspiracies to depress nursing wages. Global coverage counsel.
- Representation of Chubb affiliates on coverage matters relating to hospitals allegedly conspiring with Blue Cross network to restrict competition and penalize payers having non-exclusive contracts with other HMOs.
- Representation of several insurers, including Swiss Re, Endurance, and other specialty insurers, in multiple claims for indemnity related to allegations of negligent credentialing and supervision arising from underlying malpractice and sexual abuse class actions.
Directors and Officers Liability
We have handled D&O insurance coverage claims involving the full spectrum of insured entities, industries, and underlying actions. These matters range from claims arising from high profile accounting scandal cases, securities class actions, shareholder derivative and direct actions, and mergers and acquisitions, to employment related disputes, governmental investigations and litigation, and False Claims Act litigation.
Representative matters include:
- Representation of Arch Insurance Company in Connect America, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., a $5 million coverage dispute arising from underlying trademark infringement and false advertising lawsuits. Jury verdict for Arch in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Representation of Arch Insurance Company in Key Plastics, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co. in coverage dispute arising from underlying shareholder derivative suit. Case is currently ongoing.
- Representation of The Hartford in Orchard Brands Topco v. Twin City, et al., a dispute arising from the defense and $75 million settlement of an underlying adversary proceeding against several investment companies and their directors for alleged looting of a shell company leading to its bankruptcy. Settled after favorable summary judgment ruling for Hartford concerning disgorgement defense under California law.
- Representation of Chubb Custom Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company in Michael A. D’Amelio v. Federal Insurance Co. Claims under D&O and representations and warranties insurance policies for $15 million brought by principal shareholder. Resolved favorably for client following victory on dispositive motions.
- Representation of Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. in Stephen Dalton v. Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. Claims for D&O coverage by principal shareholder of defunct 40 Act firm arising from his settlement of employee suits. Settled following dispositive motions.
- Representation of Federal Insurance Company in Federal Insurance Co. v. Voice Signal Technologies, Inc. Obtained favorable settlement of claims arising from alleged misuse of patented technology in Massachusetts federal court.
- Representation of Federal Insurance Company in MIB Group, Inc., et al., v. Federal Insurance Co. Obtained favorable ruling on motion to dismiss in federal court in Massachusetts.
- Representation of Zurich in Sovereign Bank v. Zurich American Insurance Co. Obtained favorable settlement of claims arising from False Claims Act suit against insured financial institution.
- Representation of Zurich in an action seeking reformation and declaratory judgment against the directors and officers of a now bankrupt medical financing company, Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Michael A. O’Hanlon, et al. (DVI). Obtained reformation of the policy to add an aggregate and held ruling on appeal.
- Representation of Chartis in Foodtown v. National Union Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. Defense of coverage action under not-for-profit D&O policy. Obtained favorable summary judgment rulings from the District Court which were affirmed by the Third Circuit.
- Representation of Zurich Insurance Company in Verizon, Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance Co., et al., in $65 million D&O dispute arising from Verizon unsuccessful spinoff of its business directory services. Litigation is ongoing.
Errors and Omissions/Professional Liability (Non-Healthcare)
Our E&O and professional liability coverage experience includes not only trying cases to verdict but also counseling and monitoring roles in matters involving personal or advertising injury, equipment inspections, lending practices, and financial rating services.
Representative cases include:
- Representation of Allied World Assurance Company in Millennium Laboratories, Inc. v. Darwin Select Insurance Co. Case involves breach of contract and bad faith allegations in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California involving alleged claim for personal or advertising injury. Currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals following week long jury trial.
- Representation of Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company (“HSB”) in several cases, including HSB, Inc. v. Lloyds as a plaintiff in a professional liability dispute following an explosion at a convalescent center. After several years of negotiations, litigation and a trial, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled for HSB, awarding approximately $7 million beyond the SIR (plus further interest).
- Representation of Continental Casualty Company in Marie Miller, et al. v. Continental Casualty Company, et al. Breach of contract and bad faith claims arising from $15 million verdict and judgment against E&O insured, a real estate company. We obtained judgment in favor of the insurer on plaintiff’s Section 8371 bad faith claim.
- Representation of The Hartford in The Hartford v. MP III Holdings, Inc., et al., arising from several cases in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania and Texas brought by and against The Hartford’s insured, a truck driver training school, whose securitized student loans resulted in substantial defaults. Won summary judgment for client.
- Representation of Executive Risk as an excess insurer to the three major rating agencies – Moody’s, McGraw-Hill, and Fitch – that have been sued in scores of actions around the world stemming from their roles in rating mortgage-backed securities. These cases span multiple policy periods and demand careful analysis of numerous primary and excess policies along with the laws of several US and foreign jurisdictions. Because ratings are published in various media and were allegedly used to promote the sale of mortgage-backed securities and similar products, these cases have called for a sophisticated analysis of whether the ratings qualify as advertisements and the interplay of the primary policy’s media, internet, and MPL coverage modules.
Cyber-Risk
We regularly represent clients in disputes involving claims for coverage arising from data breaches, theft of software and digital intellectual property (including related licensing and trademark issues), network security issues, internet liability, privacy, and media liability.
- Represented Gulf Insurance Company in i-Frontier, Inc. v. Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company, a coverage and bad faith dispute brought under a Cyber policy arising from the insureds’ alleged uploading of a competitor’s work-product in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). Secured dismissal for client under Rule 12(b)(6).
Transactional Risk
Our team has more than 15 years of experience analyzing and litigating transactional risk coverage issues. We have litigated, arbitrated, or negotiated to resolution coverage disputes arising from matters involving private and publicly traded companies in the manufacturing, service, and technology sectors, for CNA, Chubb companies, and other insurers.
Long Tail Exposure
Our group has a varied and extensive long tail liability coverage practice, including asbestos, environmental, and emerging toxic tort claims (e.g., benzene and other deleterious substance claims). We handle all aspects and phases of long tail coverage disputes, ranging from initial coverage analyses to mediation and/or trial practice and appellate work. As part of our work over the last 25 years, we have litigated a wide variety of issues including the proper scope and interpretation of so-called “asbestosis” or “asbestos products” exclusions; interpretation of both the sudden and accidental and absolute pollution exclusions based on regulatory and drafting history as well as custom and usage evidence; characterization of asbestos claims as products/completed operations claims versus pure operations claims; characterization of asbestos claims as a “single occurrence;” and proper application of various states’ trigger theories and allocation methodologies among multiple policy years and layers.
Representative matters include:
- Representation of Columbia Casualty Company in AstenJohnson, Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co. and American Insurance Co. Claim for approximately $100 million plus Section 8371 damages for asbestos/asbestosis exposure. After a multi-week federal District Court trial, United States District Court Judge Stengel entered judgment in favor of Columbia Casualty, reforming an asbestosis exclusion to bar all asbestos-related claims and accepting several additional defenses to coverage. Retrial on the jury trial (versus non-jury for declaratory relief only) issue was granted by the Third Circuit. A favorable settlement for our client was ultimately reached before trial.
- Representation of Continental Insurance Company in PMA v. George V. Hamilton. Asbestos litigation with potentially unlimited exposure for defense costs in connection with alleged operations claims made on policies that exhausted products/completed operations aggregates over a decade ago and a special multi-peril policy with products/completed operations exclusion. Issues of first impression litigated included application of Wallace & Gale to defense costs; whether the multi-peril policy covers off-premises asbestos claims; use of regulatory estoppel against the insured; application of Koppers allocation to defense costs; and exception to four corners rule for assessing duty of defense where policy may be exhausted. A favorable settlement for our client was ultimately reached before trial.
- Representation of Continental Insurance Company over insurance coverage for remediation costs, fines, penalties and litigation expenses in Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Co., et al. (Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania). This case arises from the environmental remediation of dozens of sites located in the eastern United States formerly operated by plaintiff Consolidated Rail Corporation, including rail yards, manufacturing facilities, and fueling facilities, and other liabilities imposed by CERCLA and similar statutes. After successive rounds of briefing, interim partial summary judgment rulings and arguments in the trial court, we successfully persuaded the court on summary judgment, in a matter of first impression, that the excess liability policies issued to Conrail did not provide coverage for liabilities that did not result from its own operations, and obtained a favorable ruling for our client that there is no coverage for fines and penalties imposed under state environmental laws. This ruling has national implications.
- Representation of CNA in Continental Ins. Co. v. ACE Property & Casualty Co., et al., in a case involving “deleterious substances” exposures at railroad facilities around the country. Issues included whether coverage is barred by the known loss doctrine and whether there was an occurrence during the relevant policy periods. Case also involved extensive Koppers allocation analysis. Case settled on favorable terms to our client.
- Representation of American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, and Continental Casualty Company in Ward Sand & Materials Company v. Transamerica Insurance Co. Environmental coverage case brought in New Jersey involving Carter Wallace allocation issues for both indemnity and defense costs. Won summary judgment.
- Representation of Swiss Re/Westport in coverage suits brought by Goodrich Corporation in Ohio state court; one asbestos and one environmental (alleging extensive groundwater contamination at 160-acre site in Rialto, California). Issues being litigated include whether occurrence took place within the relevant policy periods; treatment of claims as single occurrence; whether policies’ occurrence limits are annualized; proper treatment of stub periods; and allocation issues under GenCorp.
- Representation of General Re and its affiliates (including North Star Reinsurance Corporation and General Reinsurance Corporation) in noise-induced hearing loss coverage litigation in federal and state courts in Pennsylvania in Penn Central RR Co. v. General Reinsurance Corp. Resolved successfully with coverage in place agreement.
- Representation of Continental Insurance Company in SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline f/k/a Beecham Holdings, Inc. Benzene exposure case, with allocation, exclusions, notice, and other issues under the laws of several states.
- Representation of American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, in Flaw, Inc. t/a Recycle Oil Co. v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania. Claim for pollution coverage under GL policy. Enforceability of absolute pollution exclusion in claimed closed container situation; defense against proposed extension of Sunbeam principles to absolute pollution exclusion.
- Representation of Continental Casualty Company and Transportation Insurance Company in Simon Wrecking Co., Inc., Simon Resources, Inc., Mid-State Trading Co. v. American International Underwriters, et al. Claim for environmental coverage by waste hauler arising out of PCB contamination claim; litigated Sunbeam “custom and usage” and regulatory estoppel issues never-before pursued in Pennsylvania; favorable ruling on scope of regulatory estoppel defense prior to settlement.
- Representation of Gulf Insurance Company in Terra Environmental Contractors, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance. Claim for environmental coverage after testing of pipeline resulted in alleged contamination.
Products Liability and Construction Defects
Hangley Aronchick attorneys regularly represent insurers in cases arising from products liability and construction defect actions. Our practice is national in scope and covers all facets of representation, from advice and counseling to trial and appellate work.
Representative matters include:
- Representation of Continental Casualty Company in Specialty Surfaces International Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., in which we established important Third Circuit precedent that design defects do not qualify as “occurrences” under a GL policy, whether a claim against the designer is pleaded as a contract or tort claim. The case presented a true conflict of laws between California and Pennsylvania, and we successfully advocated for the application of Pennsylvania law.
- Representation of CNA companies in National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Robinson Fans Holdings, Inc., a declaratory judgment action related to the failure of industrial fans by a manufacturer with GL, Umbrella, and Manufacturer’s E&O policies. Settled following trial (with hung jury 7-1 in client’s favor).
- Representation of General Re and its affiliates in anti-hemophilic blood clotting factor coverage litigation (Factor VIII coverage cases) in two separate litigations brought by pharmaceutical companies Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., and Baxter Pharmaceuticals.
Advertising Injury
Members of our team are frequently asked to provide advice on some of the leading issues in advertising injury coverage disputes across the country and have been called upon to help resuscitate, on post-trial motion and appeal, a case in which these issues were lost at trial in Florida state court. We have helped create law favorable to insurers on questions involving what constitutes “widespread” and/or “public” distribution of alleged advertising material and continue to help our clients reach advantageous settlements based on our aggressive development of novel and winning defenses.
Representative matters include:
- Representation of The Hartford in Daytona Beach, Florida, on post-trial motions and appeal following a $19 million trial loss handled by another firm against The Hartford on a $1 million policy, in The Broadcast Team v. The Hartford. After several hearings, the trial judge set aside the verdict and entered judgment for a remitted award of $1.7 million. An appeal was successfully taken, and the case ultimately resolved favorably to our client.
- Representation of Allied World Assurance Company in Millennium Laboratories, Inc. v. Darwin Select Insurance Co. Case involves breach of contract and bad faith allegations in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
- Representation of Hartford/Twin City Fire Insurance Company in advertising injury case. Insured argued that daily e-mails directed to approximately 300 individuals containing copyrighted news articles constituted “advertisements” under the terms of the policy, thus entitling it to coverage. Summary judgment granted to Twin City on the duty to indemnify after the court concluded that the publication was neither sufficiently widespread nor public to be deemed an advertisement. Toffler Assoc., Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co.
- Sought declaratory judgment in Indiana for The Hartford in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Forethought Financial Services, Inc., a case involving distribution of promotional materials over a password-protected website. Settled prior to trial.
First Party Property, Equipment Breakdown and Business Interruption Coverage
Our team routinely represents insurers in first party disputes arising from real and personal property damage and related business interruption claims in multiple jurisdictions. We have represented one of the nation’s leading boiler and equipment breakdown insurers, providing coverage advice and litigation support in several actions in state and federal court. We have represented insurers in property and income loss claims stemming from natural disasters such as hurricanes, addressing related bad faith issues, and defending against insureds’ attempts to invade “pattern and practice” claim procedures. We have also represented a leading insurer in connection with World Trade Center claims and related bad faith litigation.
Representative matters include:
- Representation of CNA affiliates following breach of contract coverage determinations against the insurer. Tried one statutory bad faith case following an adverse coverage decision, resulting in a win for the insurer, Prime Medical Associates v. Valley Forge Insurance Co. Also obtained remittitur of the $4 million breach of contract award to $2 million. Appealed the balance of the award and obtained appellate decision in favor of Valley Forge reversing trial court and directing the entry of judgment for Valley Forge. Upheld with denial of allocatur by Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- Representation of insurer against allegations in “replacement value” dispute and related business interruption charge arising from printing press breakdown.
- Representation of insurer in claim for lost income related to generator explosion at personal storage facility.
- Representation of insurer in property and business interruption claim arising from allegations that cooling unit leaked beneath ice rink multiplex causing damage and lost income.
- Representation of insurers in several first party property and bad faith claims related from hurricane damage to multi-building condominium complex in Florida.
- Representation of insurer in bad faith and first party property litigation arising from World Trade Center losses.
Bad Faith Litigation
Our coverage lawyers routinely handle high-stakes bad faith litigation for commercial insurers across the country. Our approach to these claims combines aggressive motion practice with our bad faith trial experience to help narrow the contours of extra-contractual relief available and to minimize our client’s extra-contractual exposure. We have defended and tried bad faith cases before both judges and juries with successful outcomes and have created favorable law for insurers in the process. We have provided counsel, are handling, and have handled through successful settlement, argument, and/or trial bad faith matters in more than 20 states and frequently assume control of matters after a coverage trial for the subsequent bad faith litigation.
Representative matters include:
- Representation of The Hartford and Chubb in Cigna Corp. v. Nutmeg Insurance Co., et al. in bad faith and coverage litigation following denial of fiduciary coverage to Cigna Corporation arising from a national class action of current and former employees under ERISA seeking hundreds of millions in plan benefits. Clients prevailed on the bad faith and coverage claims on summary judgment; judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- Representation of The Hartford in Softmart, Inc. v. The Hartford, a bad faith and coverage litigation brought by a business software provider seeking Crime Policy coverage arising from underlying litigation with the insureds’ former directors and officers. The Hartford prevailed on the bad faith counts on summary judgment in federal court.
- Representation of The Hartford in The Hartford v. MP III Holdings, Inc., et al., in a bad faith and coverage action arising from claims by and against The Hartford’s insured, a truck driver training school, whose securitized student loans resulted in substantial defaults. The Hartford prevailed on the bad faith counts on summary judgment and appeal.
- Representation of Chubb and Swiss Re in UnitedHealth Group, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., et al., in bad faith and coverage litigation arising from the In Re Managed Care class action seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from their professional liability insurers for alleged delayed benefit payments. Clients prevailed on the bad faith and coverage allegations on summary judgment, at trial and on appeal.
- Representation of Zurich in Tower Investments, Inc. v. Rawle & Henderson, et al., in bad faith litigation arising out of the settlement of a real estate developer’s claims that Zurich breached the insurance contract by settling without the developer’s consent. Zurich prevailed on summary judgment and appeal.
- Representation of Zurich in Daniel P. Fuss Builders Contractors, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of America. The policyholder alleged bad faith failure to “timely” settle where settlement was within policy limits. The Court held no bad faith cause of action against insurer for alleged delay in settling third party claim.
- Representation of CNA in AstenJohnson, Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co., et al., which involved a claim for $100 million plus bad faith damages for asbestos/asbestosis exposure under a CGL policy – after a multiweek federal district court trial, United States District Court Judge Stengel entered judgment in favor of Columbia Casualty.
- Representation of CNA and Zurich in several catastrophic damages claims after bad faith accusations were made, taking over the trial of the cases, mediating them, and ultimately helping to bring about confidential settlements in courts in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
- Representation of Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company in several bad faith matters in Pennsylvania state and federal courts, including bad faith litigation arising after sanctions of $250,000 awarded to policyholder by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
- Representation of Zurich in several “pattern and practice” bad faith claims in Florida state courts and in federal court in the Northern District of Florida arising from substantial property damage claims following hurricane losses and coverage demands. Successful negotiation of coverage disputes with dismissal of bad faith exposure.
Reinsurance
We handle reinsurance counseling, arbitrations, and litigation, both for cedents and reinsurers, involving facultative contracts across numerous underlying product lines, including healthcare, D&O, and professional liability, with recent emphasis on healthcare matters involving wholly owned subsidiaries of hospital and managed care chains. We routinely advise clients on reinsurance disputes, addressing issues involving batching, follow-the-fortunes, breach of the duty of utmost good faith, and rescission. We are currently handling several reinsurance matters involving Bermuda and Cayman Islands captives, including a matter in Bermuda arbitration under the Bermuda International Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1993.
Representative matters include:
- Representation of global reinsurer in dispute with hospital/HMO arising from failed kidney transplant center and multimillion-dollar aggregate settlement of 120 individual claims.
- Initiated and represented reinsurer in interpleader action in which multiple parties sought proceeds from policy issued by insolvent underlying insurer.
- Representation of reinsurer in multiple claims involving settlement of underlying physician and hospital malpractice actions and defense against improper batching of claims.
- Representation of Warner Brothers in a claim against Reliance, in liquidation, relating to coverage under a motion picture advertising efficacy policy primarily turning on construction of statutory priority provisions. Obtained favorable decision from referee which was approved by Commonwealth Court.
- Representation of a leading mortgage insurer in confidential arbitration proceeding in defense of rescission and breach of contract claims by reinsurer arising from mortgage crisis.
- Representation of global reinsurer in interpleader litigation in Mississippi and Pennsylvania arising from insolvency of Pennsylvania-based insurer, dispute over reinsurance proceeds between competing guarantee associations, and dispute between Pennsylvania and Mississippi courts. Successfully resolved for General Re and its affiliates.
- Representation of General Re in insolvency/reinsurance proceedings in Pennsylvania involving Reliance and Legion liquidation proceedings. General Reinsurance Corp. v. MS Casualty Ins. Corp., et al., (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court).