Daniel J. Layden concentrates his practice on insurance coverage disputes. He represents the world’s largest carriers in sophisticated coverage, bad faith and reinsurance litigation involving multiple product lines, including directors and officers, errors and omissions, fiduciary, employment practices liability, reps and warranties, general liability, healthcare, and property & casualty coverage disputes.
Dan is frequently engaged to tackle the industry’s most sophisticated and challenging cases, providing both coverage advice to insurers as well as litigating coverage disputes on their behalf. Dan advocates his clients’ interests at all stages of litigation, consistently securing successful results through dispositive motions, bench and jury trials, and on appeal. In fact, Dan’s team is one of only a handful of nationally recognized groups that both counsels and tries to verdict complex insurance coverage disputes for the world’s largest carriers.
In addition to his insurance coverage practice, Dan has also counseled clients and tried cases involving business contract disputes, trademark and patent infringement, personal injury, employment discrimination and consumer class actions.
Dan has been honored for his skill in litigating insurance matters, including by respected English publisher Chambers USA, which ranked Dan as a Band 3 insurance litigator, calling him a “good practitioner” who “resolves disputes sensibly.”
Dan earned his law degree, cum laude, from Villanova University School of Law, and his undergraduate degree from West Chester University. Prior to joining the firm, he worked in the Insurance group of DLA Piper in Philadelphia. Inside the firm, he serves on the Intake/Collections Committee and is the Insurance Group Coordinator.
Representative Matters
- In Re Verizon Insurance Coverage Appeals – Represented excess insurer in Delaware Superior Court and Delaware Supreme Court, winning a reversal and judgement at Supreme Court, in $50 million D&O dispute concerning coverage for “Securities Claims.” Appeal also addressed whether trial court wrongly denied separate trial on allocation and reasonableness of defense costs and Delaware choice of law. Watch the argument here.
- Jacob Horn, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. – Secured summary judgment for insurer in connection with coverage demand for $60 million consent judgment entered to resolve for alleged underlying violations of the TCPA. Later prevailed before the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which upheld the District Court ruling that the policy did not cover the invasion of privacy claims brought in the underlying action. Read more here.
- Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co. v. American Healthcare Services Association, et al. – Won partial summary judgment on duty to defend and participated in related indemnity appeal before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in a case involving a multi-million dollar healthcare insurance dispute stemming from dozens of patients contracting Hepatitis C while being treated at a New Hampshire area hospital, which ultimately led to a criminal prosecution.
- TIAA-CREF Inc. v. Illinois National Ins. Co., et al. – Won jury verdict in favor of insurer in $60 million D&O coverage dispute brought by the pension fund goliath TIAA-CREF related to its defense and settlement of two class actions brought against it by its investors. Delaware Superior Court president Judge Jan Jurden called the trial “one of the best lawyered cases she has ever presided over.”
- Connect America Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Arch Insurance Company – Secured jury verdict in favor of insurer in $5 million coverage and bad faith claim arising from underlying trademark litigation.
- CIGNA Corp. v. Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. and Nutmeg Insurance Company – Won summary judgment and appeal on behalf of both insurers in $20 million coverage and bad faith case arising from underlying ERISA class action.
- Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. v. CIGNA Corp. – Won partial summary judgment, secured verdict at trial and won appeal in coverage and bad faith action involving $135 million insurance claim based on settlement of consolidated MDL class-action lawsuits. Established Pennsylvania law regarding burden of proof for allocation between covered and non-covered loss.
- HSB Group, Inc. v. SVB Underwriting, LTD – Successfully represented plaintiff in Insurer v. Insurer dispute resulting in multi-million jury verdict for client and implicating foreseeability of loss under tail coverage policy.
- Specialty Surfaces International, Inc., v. Continental Casualty Co. – Won summary judgment and appeal establishing important Third Circuit precedent that design defects do not qualify as “occurrences” under a general liability policy, whether a claim against the designer is pleaded as a contract or tort cause of action.
- Orchard Brands Topco LLC n/k/a OBC Topco LLC, et al. v. Twin City, et al. – Won partial summary judgment against hedge fund in multi-million coverage dispute relating to disgorgement defense under California law, positioning case for positive resolution for client.
- Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. MP III Holdings, et al. – Won summary judgment in state and federal court actions involving $10 million coverage and bad faith claims. Case dismissed without appeal.
- Homeland Insurance Company and Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company v. Corvel Corp. – Secured partial summary judgment in favor of Insurer in $10 million coverage action arising from underlying settlement of Louisiana physician-notice claims. Case resolved shortly thereafter.
- Representation of international insurer in several bad faith claims in Florida state and federal courts for substantial property damage claims arising out of Hurricane losses and the bad faith claims subsequent to appraisal proceedings.
- Representation of major carrier and its affiliates in managed care coverage and bad faith litigation throughout the country, including successful resolution of 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.