We know Insurance. We represent companies that cover the Fortune 1000 in complex, high-exposure insurance, reinsurance, and claim recovery disputes. Our clients rely on our reputation for success in high-risk, high-profile cases to reinforce their own reputations and client relationships. Our insurance lawyers have a nuanced understanding of our clients’ policy-based business risks and legal exposure that comes from our long-term, loyal service to the industry. We also provide strategic, effective representation in alternative dispute resolution proceedings like arbitrations, reference and appraisals, and mediations. Whatever the forum or dispute, our insurance attorneys can call upon both an internal staff of investigators and a team of external experts who are always at-the-ready to advise or testify. Through decades of courtroom success, we have earned industry leadership and respect while helping clients thwart exposures that come from unanticipated losses.
Robins Kaplan LLP announced today that four new attorneys have joined the firm’s Insurance practice.
Cyber risk insurers respond to data breach and cybersecurity threats as risk managers seek new policies and increased coverage limits.
Offering clients a nuanced understanding of the industry’s unique demands built on decades of insurance representations
Effective, immediate advice and representation for large-scale disasters and losses
Partnering with clients to promptly determine and, when necessary, litigate duty and defenses to coverage
Providing immediate post-incident response and innovative litigation strategies
Seasoned counsel who know how to build a case and prove subrogation claims
Striving to avoid litigation and achieve a reasonable and cost-effective determination of the amount of loss
An impressive track record of resolving complex legal and business challenges
Serving clients in both affirmative and defensive engagements in single, multi-party, and class actions as well as complex arbitrations
Employing a client-first, proactive approach to representations of vessel owners and subrogated insurers
Extensive experience in the evaluation, resolution, and litigation of complex construction-based claims
American Steamship Company v. Hallett Dock Company, et al.: A federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in Duluth, Minn., awarded our client American Steamship Company 100% of the $4,682,322.55 claimed in repair damages and lost business income after an 11-day trial ended February 21, 2013. The jury decided that Hallett Dock Company was 100% responsible for causing the 1,000-foot-long vessel, the Walter J. McCarthy Jr., to partially sink and flood at Hallett’s dock in the Duluth-Superior Harbor.
TBS North America Liner, Ltd. v. San Juan Navigation Corp.: Represented foreign company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and obtained a marine attachment order for 100% of the funds sought against another foreign company. Then, after a successful arbitration proceeding, we obtained an order for the release of all previously attached funds plus certain costs and interest for client.
State of Oregon v. Taiheiyo Kajun Co., Ltd., et al. (New Carissa), Circuit Court for State of Oregon 01(CV)0383 and Green Atlas Shipping, S.A. et al. v. United States of America (New Carissa), United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. CV01-156: Represented British insurers and Japanese ship owners against the United States and the state of Oregon in both federal and state trial and appellate courts in claims for the recovery of natural resource damages and business losses arising from the wreck of a commercial freighter.
Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.
World Trade Center: Represented two insurers in the multi-party dispute regarding the cost to rebuild the World Trade Center after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.
Spoilage and Business Interruption: Represented the property insurer over the amount of loss caused by a power outage resulting in widespread spoilage, business shutdown, and loss of income.
Flood Damage to Inventory: Served as umpire and party referee in multiple disputes involving flood or weather damage to surplus inventory.
Fire Damage to Historical Church: Represented insurer in dispute involving fire damage to 19th century New England Church.
Windstorm Damage to School: Represented insurer in dispute involving cost to repair a tornado-damaged school and the required code improvements.
Machinery and Equipment Damage: Represented insurer on multiple disputes involving damage to machinery and equipment.
Condominium and Apartment Damage: Served as umpire and party referee in multiple disputes involving fire damage to condominium and apartment complexes.
Georgia Blizzard Multi Factory Claim: Umpire appointed by court. Award affirmed. Award was 15% over insurer’s position and a small fraction of amount claimed. Umpire appointed independent technical expert on one issue.
Obtained judgment that the presence of lead paint does not constitute physical damage to a building.
Obtained dismissal of $60 million asbestos removal claim for carrier on statute of limitations defense; achieved dismissal of multi-million dollar claim for asbestos contamination due to fire; obtained dismissal of $40 million asbestos removal claim regarding manifestation loss theory.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer in a $45 million asbestos claim, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DuPage County Courthouse: Obtained defense verdict for architect on “sick” building claim.
Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association: $340 million judgment in favor of insurance companies in a constitutional challenge to state regulation.
Cammeby’s Management Company, LLC v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company: Represented Affiliated in matter where Cammeby’s alleged that Affiliated breached the insurance contract by failing to pay only $10 million of $30 million coverage limit for losses caused by Superstorm Sandy. After an eight-day trial, a judge ruled that Affiliated proved by clear and convincing evidence that the endorsement containing the $30 million coverage limit contained a mutual mistake as to the amount of the coverage, that the actual coverage limit was $10 million, and that the policy was reformed accordingly.
Cortina Realty Trust v. Pacific Insurance Co. Ltd., 27 Mass.L.Rep. 461 (2010): Granting summary judgment in favor of Pacific Insurance on application of flood exclusion to flooding exacerbated by a municipality’s decision to open a flood valve.
Asael Farr & Sons Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 193 P.3d 650 (Utah Ct. App. 2008): Affirming summary judgment granted to Hartford Steam Boiler on insured’s claims of breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith.
Seminis, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. CV 07-1979 GAF (C.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2008): Granting summary judgment in favor of FM Global on the applicability of the growing crops exclusion.
Retail Brand Alliance, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 489 F. Supp. 2d 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2007): Granting summary judgment in favor of FM Global holding that the period of liability for time element coverage for tenant of World Trade Center was the hypothetical period of time in which the insured would be able to replace its WTC stores with reasonably equivalent stores in a reasonably equivalent location and not the time period to replace at a location with a sales environment comparable to the one that existed at the WTC or, if none, the hypothetical period of time to rebuild the WTC.
Miletich v. Travelers Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4395702 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2007): Affirming summary judgment granted to Travelers in bad-faith claim on grounds that jury’s subsequent determination that there was no coverage for insured’s claim meant that Travelers could not have acted in bad faith as a matter of law.
Granite Ridge Energy, LLC v. Allianz Global Risk et al., No. 10-cv-02430-PAC (S.D.N.Y. 2012): Granting summary judgment to insurers of $20 million claim for replacement of transformer and business interruption, on basis that insured had not provided physical loss or damage.
Mudlin v. Hills Materials Co., 742 N.W.2d 49 (S.D. 2007): Affirming summary judgment granted to Liberty Mutual in bad faith claim, holding that an insurer has a right to challenge fairly debatable insurance claims without being liable for the tort of “bad faith".
Penton Media, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 245 Fed. Appx. 495, 2007 WL 2332323 (6th Cir., Aug. 15, 2007): Affirming summary judgment granted to Affiliated in 9/11 claim based on FEMA takeover of Jacob Javits Center finding that claim was not covered by policy’s civil authority coverage.
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gulf Ins. Co., No. 03 Civ. 000561 (Mass. Norfolk Super. Ct., Jan. 3, 2007): Granting summary judgment to client, Gulf, in an “other insurance” dispute, with court finding that Gulf had no duty to share in the defense costs and indemnity in a personal injury action brought by the insured.
SR Int’l Bus. Co. Ltd. v. World Trade Center Props. LLC, No. 01-9291, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79326 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2006): Holding that replacement cost coverage should be measured by the cost to replace the WTC on an “as was” basis and does not include the cost to make the rebuilt structure safe, modern, and politically palatable.
NCF Fin., Inc. v. Cybersafe Corp., No. 56933-3-I, 2006 WL 3617030 (Wash. Ct. App., July 21, 2006): Affirming summary judgment in favor of Federal Insurance Company in claim for damage to computers while on lease on grounds that insured did not have an insurable interest in the damaged property and on grounds that claim was barred by suit limitation provision.
FBS Mortgage Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. CV 05-8009 PA (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2006): Granting summary judgment to Affiliated based on lack of standing by assignee to prosecute claim by Affiliated’s insured.
Planet China, Inc. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., No. 02:03-CV-01509 (D. Nev. March 16, 2006): Granting summary judgment in favor of HSB in claim losses arising out of damage to ice sculpture exhibit, which occurred when air conditioning unit failed, on ground that claimant was not an insured under the policy and the insured did not have any insurable interest in the damaged equipment.
Pentair, Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 400 F.3d 613 (8th Cir. 2005): Affirming summary judgment in favor of American Guarantee on a contingent business interruption claim.
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. RFI Supply, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D. Mass. 2005), aff’d, 440 F.3d 549 (1st Cir. 2006): Granting summary judgment in favor of Factory Mutual Research Corporation on third-party claim based on alleged negligent approval.
Clark County v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. CV-s-02-1258-KJD (D. Nev., March 28, 2005): Granting summary judgment in favor of FM Global in claim by owners of McCarran International Airport for losses arising out of FAA shutdown of airports after 9/11 attack.
N. Dakota State Univ. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 694 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 2005): Affirming summary judgment in favor of HSB on flood coverage claim.
Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bobst Group USA, Inc., 392 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2004): Affirming summary judgment in favor of FM Global on negligent inspection claim.
GTE Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 598 (3d Cir. 2004): Affirming summary judgment in favor of insurers in claim for losses related to Year 2000 date recognition problem on grounds that defective design and inherent vice exclusions precluded coverage.
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. RFI Supply, Inc., 118 Fed. App’x. 122 (9th Cir. 2004): Affirming summary judgment in favor of Factory Mutual Research Corporation on third-party claim based on alleged negligent approval. Ultimately recovered $250,000 in attorneys’ fees against Rantec in 2006 settlement.
Todd Shipyards v. Westport Ins. Corp., 111 Fed. App’x. 534 (9th Cir. 2004): Affirming summary judgment in Nisqually earthquake case based on suit limitation defense.
Cook County v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 02 C 7023, 2004 WL 549447 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2004): Granting summary judgment in favor of FM Global in claim by owners of O’Hare International Airport for losses arising out of FAA shutdown of airports after 9/11 attack.
Obtained multi-million dollar settlements in case against insurance broker for misrepresentation of risk during placement and in case against architect and engineer for construction defects.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer in a bad faith action where the court found the insurer’s conduct reasonable as a matter of law. The ruling was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer sued in breach of contract and bad faith action on the grounds of the suit limitation clause.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer sued in breach of contract on the grounds of the “earth movement” exclusion.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a property insurer sued in breach of contract and bad faith action on the grounds that the claimant lacked standing to sue the insurer.
Y2K: Obtained summary judgment and appellate court affirmance that property insurance policies do not cover the cost of making the insured’s systems Y2K compliant.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of two property insurers sued in a negligence action for allegedly approving and designing a fire sprinkler system that accidentally discharged on the grounds that the insurers owed no duty of care to the owner or any third-party.
Chicago Board of Trade: Dismissal of bond claim in case involving Chicago broker and German brokerage house in fidelity claim.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of property insurer sued for breach of contract and bad faith in a multi-million dollar mold remediation claim on the grounds that the insured’s loss manifested before and was a loss-in-progress at the time the insurer’s policy coverage began.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a liability insurer sued in breach of contract and bad faith action on the grounds that the insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the insured based on various provisions of the policy.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a product manufacturer in more than five different cases, all on the grounds that the undisputed facts demonstrated the manufacturer’s product was not defective.
Liberty Mutual v. General Information Services: Established absence of coverage under “personal and advertising injury” element of CGL policies for class-action claims alleging violation of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.
CFS Logistics, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance Company, et al. No. C.A. 12-217, R.I. Superior Court, Kent County (August 15, 2012): Represented American Motorists in a coverage dispute under an inland marine policy. The plaintiff alleged a covered loss during transit to a multi-million dollar piece of military equipment. Obtained an order from the bench dismissing plaintiff’s allegations under Rule 12(b)(6) and separate and final judgment dismissing American Motorists from the litigation.
One Meridian Plaza Fire: Defense and multi-million dollar subrogation recovery for carrier and the tenant regarding Philadelphia high-rise office building fire.
Felman Production, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers, No. 3:09-0481, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112156 (S.D.W.V. Sept. 29, 2011): The Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of client on insured’s business interruption claim.
Pentair, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. 400 F.3d 613 (8th Cir. 2005): Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of American Guarantee on a contingent business interruption claim.
Seminis, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2008): The Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of our client, holding that the “growing crops” exclusion precluded coverage for research plants grown in open fields.
Caraustar Industries, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1:10-cv-0006-SCJ (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2011): The Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, Factory Mutual Insurance Company. Our client insured the plaintiff's properties under an all-risks insurance policy that contained a flood exclusion. In September 2009, the plaintiff's properties were damaged by a flood. On summary judgment, the Court held that the plain language of the policy clearly provided no coverage for the plaintiff's $22 million flood loss.
Factory Mutual Insurance Co.: Achieved excess of $16,000,000 recovery for Factory Mutual Insurance Company and an electric utility company in January 2006. This case involved the collapse of a dam and flooding of a power plant in Michigan.
Cortina Realty Trust v. Pacific Insurance Co. LTD, 27 Mass. L. Rep. 461 (2010): Obtained summary judgment for insurance client in a lawsuit over whether an insurance policy’s flood exclusion precluded coverage for flooding exacerbated by the decision of a neighboring town to open a flood valve.
LKBOC, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 06-1617 (E.D.La. Feb. 13, 2007): Obtained partial summary judgment for insurance client in a lawsuit over the availability of lost rents insurance to downtown office towers in New Orleans for the period after the lifting of Hurricane Katrina evacuation orders and the restoration of utility services.
Georgia Blizzard: Defense of $200 million business interruption dispute in appraisal proceeding.
Northridge California Earthquake: Represented carriers in numerous contexts, including code upgrade coverage interpretation, application of deductibles, coordination of multi-layered coverages, and measurement issues.
North Dakota State University v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. 694 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 2005): North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of HSB on flood coverage claim.
Todd Shipyards v. Westport Insurance Corp., 111 Fed. Appx. 534 (9th Cir. 2004): Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in Nisqually earthquake case.
Lund Food Holdings E. coli Contamination: Achieved confidential recovery for Lund Food Holdings (“Lunds/Byerly’s”) in the E. coli O157:H7 contamination litigation after Lunds/Byerly’s responded to the 2007 recall of ground beef and hundreds of reports of contamination and illness. Also defended Lunds/Byerly’s in numerous claims arising out of the ground beef contamination incident.
Schwan’s Salmonella Outbreak: Multi-million dollar recovery for Schwan’s Sales Enterprises after the 1994 nationwide Salmonella Enteritidis contamination and recall of Schwan’s ice cream involving an estimated 224,000 ill consumers. Also coordinated the defense of Schwan’s in the claims and lawsuits arising out of the ice cream contamination incident. At that time, this food contamination event was considered by The New England Journal of Medicine to be the largest common-source salmonellosis outbreak ever recognized in the United States.
SuperValu E. coli Contamination: Multi-million dollar recovery for SuperValu in the E. coli O157:H7 contamination litigation after SuperValu responded to the 2000 recall of ground beef and thousands of reports of contamination and illness. Also defended SuperValu in numerous illness claims arising out of the ground beef contamination incident.
Blue Springs Internal Medicine, P.C., et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, et al.; Mirabile v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, et al.: Represented Coventry Health Care subsidiaries in two companion tag-along cases to the Managed Care Litigation MDL, brought by physicians in Kansas and Missouri, containing allegations against managed care companies that were similar to the allegations in the lead Shane case in the MDL. After denying the plaintiffs’ motions to remand the cases to state court, the district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the cases without prejudice. The plaintiffs then filed new complaints, this time alleging breach of contract, again on behalf of statewide classes of providers. Once again the district court dismissed the cases without prejudice, requiring, as a condition for refiling the cases, that the plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies under ERISA.
Omnicare, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.: Represented Coventry Health Care, Inc., in arbitration with nationwide provider of pharmacy services relating to dispute over submission, adjudication, and payment of claims for prescription drugs under the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. The arbitrator found in favor of Coventry as to some claims and in favor of the claimant as to some claims. The award was confirmed on appeal to the Superior Court in California.
Rogers v. I D Design, Inc., et al.: Represented Coventry Health Care of Georgia, Inc., in action by terminated employee alleging entitlement to health insurance continuation coverage benefits under COBRA. Coventry’s motion for summary judgment was granted on the ground that the small employer exception to COBRA applied.
Chehalem Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.: Represent Coventry Health Care, Inc., in another purported nationwide class action alleging substantially the same claims as those asserted in Hoda v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., but filed in a different federal District Court. The Court granted Coventry’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief on the ground that the plaintiff did not have standing to assert the claim. After discovery, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification on its claim for damages. The Court then granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a plaintiff that had standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief. After additional discovery the plaintiffs moved for class certification of the added plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief and for summary judgment. Motion for summary judgment was denied.
FM/Rantec: Negligent inspection resulted in summary judgment. Affirmed by 9th Circuit in November 2004.
Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bobst Group USA, Inc., 392 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2004): Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of FM on negligent inspection claim.
Gifford v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 811 N.E.2d 853 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004): Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for HSB on negligent inspection claim.
Lockheed Martin v. RFI, 118 Fed. Appx. 122 (9th Cir. 2004): Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Factory Mutual Research Corporation on third-party claim based on alleged negligent approval.
Board of Regents: Established legal precedent in Minnesota that “sudden” in pollution exclusion has temporal meaning.
Established seminal case law on reinsurance of declaratory judgment costs.
Hollywood Studio Fire: Obtained $5,800,000 settlement for subrogated insurer after winning liability phase of an inverse condemnation trial.
Olympic Pipeline: Represented several foreign and domestic insurance companies in litigation arising from the Olympic pipeline rupture and explosion in Bellingham, Washington. As a result of the unavailability of the pipeline, Atlantic Richfield sustained business interruption and extra expense losses. The litigation involved the resolution of coverage issues with Atlantic Richfield and a subrogation action against the owner and operator of the pipeline. The subrogation case settled for a confidential amount a month before trial was scheduled to begin in federal court in Seattle.
Dole Subrogation: Recovered over $6.5 million on behalf of Dole Foods, Inc. and Underwriters at Lloyd’s arising out of a fire at Dole’s plant in Yuma, Arizona.
LaGrange, Georgia Fire: Recovery of over $99 million on behalf of property insurer and policy holder for fire.
IRI/Malette: Obtained settlement in international arbitration of subrogation claim brought after fire against German manufacturer.
Kentucky Utility Company Turbine Fire: Recovery following disastrous failure of turbine generator.
Americold Fire: Multi-million dollar recovery from fire in 360-acre underground food warehouse for subrogated insurers and food companies.
Taiwan Fire: Multi-million dollar subrogation recovery for computer manufacturing plant damages.
Illinois Bell Telephone Company Fire: Multi-million dollar recovery for Illinois Bell and subrogated carrier in telecommunications fire.
Northwestern (now Wells Fargo) Bank Fire: Multi-million dollar recovery for bank and subrogated carrier in Minneapolis fire.
New York Explosion: Obtained multi-million dollar subrogation recovery for explosion of anechoic chamber during testing.
Chicago Flood: Multi-million dollar subrogation recovery for department stores and their insurers.
Pajaro River Flooding and Yuba River Flooding: Obtained verdicts on behalf of subrogated insurers and against public entities for multimillion-dollar flood losses in Northern California.
Wisconsin Energy: Represented Wisconsin Electric Power Company and its property insurers and achieved confidential settlements with dam owner, construction firm, and design engineers, arising from the Silver Lake fuse plug failure near Marquette, Michigan.
Willowridge Litigation: Recovered over $7 million for excess insurer against primary carriers in a contribution and indemnity action for repayment of defense fees and indemnification paid to insureds arising out of the Alliance insurance fraud and conspiracy.
Alliance RICO Litigation: Recovered over $12 million judgment in favor of insurer against individual defendants under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act arising out of an insurance fraud and conspiracy.
Hayward v. State Farm: Affirmed the rights guaranteed to an insurance company to recoup its payments from a liable party in subrogation actions.
Chicago Board of Trade: Dismissal of bond claim in case involving Chicago broker and German brokerage house in fidelity claim.
Fuller Brush Fire Historic Verdict: Represented Factory Mutual in Fuller Brush Fire. Case award of $395,000 was the largest negligence verdict in Minnesota at the time.
Robins Kaplan LLP Insurance and Catastrophic Loss trial attorney, William Stanhope, appointed president of Atlanta Legal Aid Society.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently determined that an anti-concurrent cause clause is inconsistent with the Arizona Standard File Policy.
People make mistakes. Even drafters of insurance policies make them. Courts have recognized that scrivener’s errors "are difficult to prevent" and, more importantly, that "no useful societal purpose is served by enforcing . . . mistaken term[s]."
There are a number of best practices companies should consider when they store their data in the cloud.
© Copyright 2016 Robins Kaplan LLP All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising. Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome.