Hanover Ins. Co.  v. Larson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127534 (W.D. Mo. July 2, 2025), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that two guaranties totaling in excess of $11 million did not trigger D&O Policy’s Insuring Agreement, as the three officers executing the guaranties did so in their “individual capacity,” and not their insured “corporate capacity.”

Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Discovery Harbour Cmty. Ass’n, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26654 (D. Haw. Feb. 3, 2025), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that two lawsuits constitute “related” Claims, despite the second lawsuit adding new insured persons (not named in the prior lawsuit) and new causes of action not previously alleged in the prior lawsuit.

Paraco Gas Corp. v. Ironshore Indemn., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14628 (2d Cir. June 17, 2024), affirming Southern District of New York’s granting of an insurer’s motion to dismiss and enforcing Contract Exclusion, including against breach of fiduciary duty allegations.  2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108475 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).

Origis USA LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 383 (Del. Super. Ct. May 9, 2024), granting insurer’s motion to dismiss against Delaware state coverage lawsuit based on the policy’s No Action Clause.

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28172 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2023), affirming Nevada District Court’s granting of insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, enforcing Warranty Exclusion in D&O Excess Policy, despite two non-imputation provisions. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168561 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2022).

Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alcast Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97868 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2023), following bench trial, District Court’s ruling on D&O policy’s allocation provision.

Drivetrain, LLC. v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., Adv. Pro. No.: 22-50457 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 1. 2023), granting insurer’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Nevada District Court of Trustee’s coverage litigation filed in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.

Adelman v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35554 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2022), affirming District Court’s granting insurer’s motion to dismiss based on the WARN Act Exclusion in D&O policy. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225646 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021).

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168561 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2022), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, enforcing Warranty Exclusion in D&O Excess Policy with two non-imputation provisions. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

AKN Holding, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18903 (9th Cir. July 8, 2022), affirming District Court’s enforcing Contract Exclusion in D&O policy,  2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142777 (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17723 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2022), denying Debtor’s motion to intervene in D&O coverage litigation.

Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alcast Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237693 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2021). Allocation provision of D&O policy trumps the “reasonably related” rule for Defense Expenses. 

Sycamore Partners Mgmt., L.P. v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co., 2021 Del. Super. LEXIS 182 (2021). Insurability of restitution under D&O policy. 

Hanover Ins. Co. v. Fla. Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185746 (N.D. Fla. 2020). D&O policy and indispensable parties.

Segner v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 1659 (Bankruptcy, W.D. Tex. June 4, 2018): Issues related to application of Insured v. Insured Exclusion to claims of liquidation trustee.

Astellas US Holding, Inc. v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89725 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2018): Whether DOJ investigation constitutes a “claim” under D&O policy.

Hanover Insurance Co. v. Vemma International Holding, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99554 (D. Ariz. July 29, 2016):  Denying Preliminary Injunction to advance fees of Insured Corporation in Ponzi scheme analysis of “Related Claim” provision and other coverage defenses.

Citrus Course Homeowners Association v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2016, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10199 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2016): Granting insurer’s motion to dismiss based on late notice of Claim 1, “related” Claim 2 also not covered.

LIG Insurance Co. v. AIG-Korea Ins. Co., 2013-74013 (2016): Duties between cedent and reinsurer on raising rescission of underlying D&O policy. Decided by the South Korean Supreme Court.

Great American Ins. Co. v. Re Veteran’s Support Organization, 166 F.Supp. 3d. 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2015): Issues related to discovery dispute under Nonprofit D&O Policy.

W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94005 (D.P.R. 2014): Whether FDIC Lawsuit is "interrelated" to prior Securities Class Action Lawsuit.

Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2138 (9th Cir. 2014): In coverage litigation, insurer permitted to plead diversity on information and belief.

W. Holding Co., Inc. v. Chartis Ins. Co., 748 F. 3d 377 (1st Cir. 2014): Application of D&O policy’s Insured v. Insured exclusion to FDIC lawsuit against failed bank’s directors and officers. 

Macey v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174746 (D. Conn. 2012): Application of D&O policy's “other insurance” clause.

Connolly v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 25392 (9th Cir. 2012): When insurance policy is rescinded, insurer may subtract from the premium paid back to the insured the amount of defense costs paid to the insured ($589,043) until rescission is effectuated.

SonicBlue, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 19864 (9th Cir. 2011): D&O policy rescinded for misrepresentations in policy application. 

Biltmore Associates, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 572 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2009): Claim by debtor-in-possession that falls within Insured v. Insured Exclusion. 

Gregory v. Venbrook Ins. Services, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58653 (C.D. Cal. 2009): Insured v. Insured exclusion and fraudulent joinder.

Macey v. Carolina Casualty Co., 585 F.Supp.2d 277 (D. Conn. 2008): Dismissal of claims brought by shareholders who were directors and officers for “nanosecond” based on Insured v. Insured Exclusion; appealed to Second Circuit, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13326 (2d Cir. 2010).

In re Laminate Kingdom, LLC, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1594 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008): Finding that a D&O policy with entity coverage is not an “asset” of bankrupt debtor’s estate. 

Onvoy, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47198 (D. Minn. 2006): Whether DOJ subpoena constitutes a “claim” under D&O policy.

Biltmore Associates, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56034 (D. Ariz. 2006): Dismissal of a bad faith/breach of contract lawsuit based on $175 million in consent judgments against an excess D&O insurer. 

Alanco Technology v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31988 (D. Ariz. 2006): Finding that a claim for defense expenses related to a stock-for-asset purchase does not constitute “loss” under a D&O policy. 

Equifin v. Admiral Ins. Co., MON-L-3075-00 (Super. Ct. N.J.): Creditor’s exclusion applies to transactional lawsuit.

New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Beckoff, case no. 4553, London Court of International Arbitration, June 22, 2005: Decision that a claim by a creditors’ committee against the debtors’ former directors and officers falls within the Insured v. Insured Exclusion. 

Westcott Holding, Inc. v. Monitor Liability Managers, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20149 (S.D. Tex. 2005): Finding that an insured entity’s failure to indemnify its officers is not “loss” under a D&O policy.

Alanco Technology, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28266 (D. Ariz. 2004): Insured v. Insured Exclusion applies to claims by a former officer not with company for eight years. 

Physicians Corp. of America Securities Litigation, case no. 97-3678 (S.D. Fla. 2002): “No Action” clause bars coverage action against D&O insurer. 

Foster v. Summit Medical Systems, Inc., 610 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. App. 2000): The Past Acts Exclusion applies to securities class action, even where all of the causes of action were based on post-policy conduct; SEC investigation does not constitute a “Securities Action Claim”

Natural Gas Utility District v. Virginia Surety Insurance Co., 99-214 (E.D. Tenn. 2000): General liability insurer responsible for “lion’s share” of six-figure defense expenses of an employment practice claim instead of D&O insurer.

In Re Roasters Corp., adversary pro. 98-9013 (Bank M.D.N.C. 1999): Excess miscellaneous E&O policy did not follow form to duty to defend primary.

S&S Healthcare, Inc. v. Virginia Surety Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21810 (W.D. Va. 1998): "No Action" clause bars action against D&O insurer. 

Edward Gray Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5834 (N.D. Ill. 1997): General liability insurance policy, examining duty to defend for construction accident.

Representative Matters

Hanover Ins. Co.  v. Larson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127534 (W.D. Mo. July 2, 2025), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that two guaranties totaling in excess of $11 million did not trigger D&O Policy’s Insuring Agreement, as the three officers executing the guaranties did so in their “individual capacity,” and not their insured “corporate capacity.”

Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Discovery Harbour Cmty. Ass’n, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26654 (D. Haw. Feb. 3, 2025), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that two lawsuits constitute “related” Claims, despite the second lawsuit adding new insured persons (not named in the prior lawsuit) and new causes of action not previously alleged in the prior lawsuit.

Paraco Gas Corp. v. Ironshore Indemn., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14628 (2d Cir. June 17, 2024), affirming Southern District of New York’s granting of an insurer’s motion to dismiss and enforcing Contract Exclusion, including against breach of fiduciary duty allegations.  2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108475 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).

Origis USA LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 383 (Del. Super. Ct. May 9, 2024), granting insurer’s motion to dismiss against Delaware state coverage lawsuit based on the policy’s No Action Clause.

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28172 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2023), affirming Nevada District Court’s granting of insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, enforcing Warranty Exclusion in D&O Excess Policy, despite two non-imputation provisions. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168561 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2022).

Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alcast Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97868 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2023), following bench trial, District Court’s ruling on D&O policy’s allocation provision.

Drivetrain, LLC. v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., Adv. Pro. No.: 22-50457 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 1. 2023), granting insurer’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Nevada District Court of Trustee’s coverage litigation filed in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.

Adelman v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35554 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2022), affirming District Court’s granting insurer’s motion to dismiss based on the WARN Act Exclusion in D&O policy. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225646 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021).

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168561 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2022), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, enforcing Warranty Exclusion in D&O Excess Policy with two non-imputation provisions. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

AKN Holding, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18903 (9th Cir. July 8, 2022), affirming District Court’s enforcing Contract Exclusion in D&O policy,  2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142777 (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17723 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2022), denying Debtor’s motion to intervene in D&O coverage litigation.

Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alcast Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237693 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2021). Allocation provision of D&O policy trumps the “reasonably related” rule for Defense Expenses. 

Sycamore Partners Mgmt., L.P. v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co., 2021 Del. Super. LEXIS 182 (2021). Insurability of restitution under D&O policy. 

Hanover Ins. Co. v. Fla. Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185746 (N.D. Fla. 2020). D&O policy and indispensable parties.

Segner v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 1659 (Bankruptcy, W.D. Tex. June 4, 2018): Issues related to application of Insured v. Insured Exclusion to claims of liquidation trustee.

Astellas US Holding, Inc. v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89725 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2018): Whether DOJ investigation constitutes a “claim” under D&O policy.

Hanover Insurance Co. v. Vemma International Holding, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99554 (D. Ariz. July 29, 2016):  Denying Preliminary Injunction to advance fees of Insured Corporation in Ponzi scheme analysis of “Related Claim” provision and other coverage defenses.

Citrus Course Homeowners Association v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2016, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10199 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2016): Granting insurer’s motion to dismiss based on late notice of Claim 1, “related” Claim 2 also not covered.

LIG Insurance Co. v. AIG-Korea Ins. Co., 2013-74013 (2016): Duties between cedent and reinsurer on raising rescission of underlying D&O policy. Decided by the South Korean Supreme Court.

Great American Ins. Co. v. Re Veteran’s Support Organization, 166 F.Supp. 3d. 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2015): Issues related to discovery dispute under Nonprofit D&O Policy.

W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94005 (D.P.R. 2014): Whether FDIC Lawsuit is "interrelated" to prior Securities Class Action Lawsuit.

Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2138 (9th Cir. 2014): In coverage litigation, insurer permitted to plead diversity on information and belief.

W. Holding Co., Inc. v. Chartis Ins. Co., 748 F. 3d 377 (1st Cir. 2014): Application of D&O policy’s Insured v. Insured exclusion to FDIC lawsuit against failed bank’s directors and officers. 

Macey v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174746 (D. Conn. 2012): Application of D&O policy's “other insurance” clause.

Connolly v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 25392 (9th Cir. 2012): When insurance policy is rescinded, insurer may subtract from the premium paid back to the insured the amount of defense costs paid to the insured ($589,043) until rescission is effectuated.

SonicBlue, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 19864 (9th Cir. 2011): D&O policy rescinded for misrepresentations in policy application. 

Biltmore Associates, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 572 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2009): Claim by debtor-in-possession that falls within Insured v. Insured Exclusion. 

Gregory v. Venbrook Ins. Services, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58653 (C.D. Cal. 2009): Insured v. Insured exclusion and fraudulent joinder.

Macey v. Carolina Casualty Co., 585 F.Supp.2d 277 (D. Conn. 2008): Dismissal of claims brought by shareholders who were directors and officers for “nanosecond” based on Insured v. Insured Exclusion; appealed to Second Circuit, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13326 (2d Cir. 2010).

In re Laminate Kingdom, LLC, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1594 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008): Finding that a D&O policy with entity coverage is not an “asset” of bankrupt debtor’s estate. 

Onvoy, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47198 (D. Minn. 2006): Whether DOJ subpoena constitutes a “claim” under D&O policy.

Biltmore Associates, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56034 (D. Ariz. 2006): Dismissal of a bad faith/breach of contract lawsuit based on $175 million in consent judgments against an excess D&O insurer. 

Alanco Technology v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31988 (D. Ariz. 2006): Finding that a claim for defense expenses related to a stock-for-asset purchase does not constitute “loss” under a D&O policy. 

Equifin v. Admiral Ins. Co., MON-L-3075-00 (Super. Ct. N.J.): Creditor’s exclusion applies to transactional lawsuit.

New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Beckoff, case no. 4553, London Court of International Arbitration, June 22, 2005: Decision that a claim by a creditors’ committee against the debtors’ former directors and officers falls within the Insured v. Insured Exclusion. 

Westcott Holding, Inc. v. Monitor Liability Managers, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20149 (S.D. Tex. 2005): Finding that an insured entity’s failure to indemnify its officers is not “loss” under a D&O policy.

Alanco Technology, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28266 (D. Ariz. 2004): Insured v. Insured Exclusion applies to claims by a former officer not with company for eight years. 

Physicians Corp. of America Securities Litigation, case no. 97-3678 (S.D. Fla. 2002): “No Action” clause bars coverage action against D&O insurer. 

Foster v. Summit Medical Systems, Inc., 610 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. App. 2000): The Past Acts Exclusion applies to securities class action, even where all of the causes of action were based on post-policy conduct; SEC investigation does not constitute a “Securities Action Claim”

Natural Gas Utility District v. Virginia Surety Insurance Co., 99-214 (E.D. Tenn. 2000): General liability insurer responsible for “lion’s share” of six-figure defense expenses of an employment practice claim instead of D&O insurer.

In Re Roasters Corp., adversary pro. 98-9013 (Bank M.D.N.C. 1999): Excess miscellaneous E&O policy did not follow form to duty to defend primary.

S&S Healthcare, Inc. v. Virginia Surety Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21810 (W.D. Va. 1998): "No Action" clause bars action against D&O insurer. 

Edward Gray Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5834 (N.D. Ill. 1997): General liability insurance policy, examining duty to defend for construction accident.

Events

Hanover Ins. Co.  v. Larson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127534 (W.D. Mo. July 2, 2025), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that two guaranties totaling in excess of $11 million did not trigger D&O Policy’s Insuring Agreement, as the three officers executing the guaranties did so in their “individual capacity,” and not their insured “corporate capacity.”

Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Discovery Harbour Cmty. Ass’n, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26654 (D. Haw. Feb. 3, 2025), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that two lawsuits constitute “related” Claims, despite the second lawsuit adding new insured persons (not named in the prior lawsuit) and new causes of action not previously alleged in the prior lawsuit.

Paraco Gas Corp. v. Ironshore Indemn., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14628 (2d Cir. June 17, 2024), affirming Southern District of New York’s granting of an insurer’s motion to dismiss and enforcing Contract Exclusion, including against breach of fiduciary duty allegations.  2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108475 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).

Origis USA LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 383 (Del. Super. Ct. May 9, 2024), granting insurer’s motion to dismiss against Delaware state coverage lawsuit based on the policy’s No Action Clause.

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28172 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2023), affirming Nevada District Court’s granting of insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, enforcing Warranty Exclusion in D&O Excess Policy, despite two non-imputation provisions. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168561 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2022).

Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alcast Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97868 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2023), following bench trial, District Court’s ruling on D&O policy’s allocation provision.

Drivetrain, LLC. v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., Adv. Pro. No.: 22-50457 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 1. 2023), granting insurer’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Nevada District Court of Trustee’s coverage litigation filed in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.

Adelman v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35554 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2022), affirming District Court’s granting insurer’s motion to dismiss based on the WARN Act Exclusion in D&O policy. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225646 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2021).

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168561 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2022), granting insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, enforcing Warranty Exclusion in D&O Excess Policy with two non-imputation provisions. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

AKN Holding, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18903 (9th Cir. July 8, 2022), affirming District Court’s enforcing Contract Exclusion in D&O policy,  2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142777 (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Ironshore Indemnity Inc. v. Kay, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17723 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2022), denying Debtor’s motion to intervene in D&O coverage litigation.

Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Alcast Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237693 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2021). Allocation provision of D&O policy trumps the “reasonably related” rule for Defense Expenses. 

Sycamore Partners Mgmt., L.P. v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co., 2021 Del. Super. LEXIS 182 (2021). Insurability of restitution under D&O policy. 

Hanover Ins. Co. v. Fla. Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185746 (N.D. Fla. 2020). D&O policy and indispensable parties.

Segner v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 1659 (Bankruptcy, W.D. Tex. June 4, 2018): Issues related to application of Insured v. Insured Exclusion to claims of liquidation trustee.

Astellas US Holding, Inc. v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89725 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2018): Whether DOJ investigation constitutes a “claim” under D&O policy.

Hanover Insurance Co. v. Vemma International Holding, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99554 (D. Ariz. July 29, 2016):  Denying Preliminary Injunction to advance fees of Insured Corporation in Ponzi scheme analysis of “Related Claim” provision and other coverage defenses.

Citrus Course Homeowners Association v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2016, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10199 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2016): Granting insurer’s motion to dismiss based on late notice of Claim 1, “related” Claim 2 also not covered.

LIG Insurance Co. v. AIG-Korea Ins. Co., 2013-74013 (2016): Duties between cedent and reinsurer on raising rescission of underlying D&O policy. Decided by the South Korean Supreme Court.

Great American Ins. Co. v. Re Veteran’s Support Organization, 166 F.Supp. 3d. 1303 (S.D. Fla. 2015): Issues related to discovery dispute under Nonprofit D&O Policy.

W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94005 (D.P.R. 2014): Whether FDIC Lawsuit is "interrelated" to prior Securities Class Action Lawsuit.

Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2138 (9th Cir. 2014): In coverage litigation, insurer permitted to plead diversity on information and belief.

W. Holding Co., Inc. v. Chartis Ins. Co., 748 F. 3d 377 (1st Cir. 2014): Application of D&O policy’s Insured v. Insured exclusion to FDIC lawsuit against failed bank’s directors and officers. 

Macey v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174746 (D. Conn. 2012): Application of D&O policy's “other insurance” clause.

Connolly v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 25392 (9th Cir. 2012): When insurance policy is rescinded, insurer may subtract from the premium paid back to the insured the amount of defense costs paid to the insured ($589,043) until rescission is effectuated.

SonicBlue, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 19864 (9th Cir. 2011): D&O policy rescinded for misrepresentations in policy application. 

Biltmore Associates, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 572 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2009): Claim by debtor-in-possession that falls within Insured v. Insured Exclusion. 

Gregory v. Venbrook Ins. Services, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58653 (C.D. Cal. 2009): Insured v. Insured exclusion and fraudulent joinder.

Macey v. Carolina Casualty Co., 585 F.Supp.2d 277 (D. Conn. 2008): Dismissal of claims brought by shareholders who were directors and officers for “nanosecond” based on Insured v. Insured Exclusion; appealed to Second Circuit, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13326 (2d Cir. 2010).

In re Laminate Kingdom, LLC, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1594 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008): Finding that a D&O policy with entity coverage is not an “asset” of bankrupt debtor’s estate. 

Onvoy, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47198 (D. Minn. 2006): Whether DOJ subpoena constitutes a “claim” under D&O policy.

Biltmore Associates, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56034 (D. Ariz. 2006): Dismissal of a bad faith/breach of contract lawsuit based on $175 million in consent judgments against an excess D&O insurer. 

Alanco Technology v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31988 (D. Ariz. 2006): Finding that a claim for defense expenses related to a stock-for-asset purchase does not constitute “loss” under a D&O policy. 

Equifin v. Admiral Ins. Co., MON-L-3075-00 (Super. Ct. N.J.): Creditor’s exclusion applies to transactional lawsuit.

New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Beckoff, case no. 4553, London Court of International Arbitration, June 22, 2005: Decision that a claim by a creditors’ committee against the debtors’ former directors and officers falls within the Insured v. Insured Exclusion. 

Westcott Holding, Inc. v. Monitor Liability Managers, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20149 (S.D. Tex. 2005): Finding that an insured entity’s failure to indemnify its officers is not “loss” under a D&O policy.

Alanco Technology, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28266 (D. Ariz. 2004): Insured v. Insured Exclusion applies to claims by a former officer not with company for eight years. 

Physicians Corp. of America Securities Litigation, case no. 97-3678 (S.D. Fla. 2002): “No Action” clause bars coverage action against D&O insurer. 

Foster v. Summit Medical Systems, Inc., 610 N.W.2d 350 (Minn. App. 2000): The Past Acts Exclusion applies to securities class action, even where all of the causes of action were based on post-policy conduct; SEC investigation does not constitute a “Securities Action Claim”

Natural Gas Utility District v. Virginia Surety Insurance Co., 99-214 (E.D. Tenn. 2000): General liability insurer responsible for “lion’s share” of six-figure defense expenses of an employment practice claim instead of D&O insurer.

In Re Roasters Corp., adversary pro. 98-9013 (Bank M.D.N.C. 1999): Excess miscellaneous E&O policy did not follow form to duty to defend primary.

S&S Healthcare, Inc. v. Virginia Surety Co., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21810 (W.D. Va. 1998): "No Action" clause bars action against D&O insurer. 

Edward Gray Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5834 (N.D. Ill. 1997): General liability insurance policy, examining duty to defend for construction accident.

Representative Matters

Thurston, Tranen, and Curtis Secure Declaratory Judgment Relief for Insurance Company Client

James Thurston (Partner-Chicago), Daniel Tranen (Partner-St. Louis, MO), and Robert Curtis (Associate-St. Louis, MO) secured a declaratory judgment dismissal on motion on the pleadings for an insurance company client in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in this matter, executives at a company insured by our client, sought coverage for a lawsuit and a demand letter arising out of their provision of personal guarantees to the company for more than $14 million in debt to a lender and a supplier. The client had denied coverage because these personal guarantees were not made in the executives' capacity as officers of the company. The executives argued that they would not have made the personal guarantees but for the fact that they were officers of the company. However, the court agreed with the insurance company client that personal guarantees are personal obligations, and therefore, cannot be made by the executives in their "capacity" as officers of the company, particularly since if they had done so, then it would have been the company guaranteeing its own debt.

James K. Thurston, Daniel E. Tranen and Robert Curtis

Murphy-Petros and Thurston Obtain Affirmance on Contract Exclusion

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) and James Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL) obtained affirmance in Paraco Gas Corp. v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc., No. 23-1069-cv. U.S. App., Second Circuit (June 17, 2024) for the firm’s specialty insurance client, Ironshore. The plaintiff, a closely held family corporation that distributes propane fuel and equipment, sought coverage under its D&O policy for a shareholder dispute involving share transfers. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that its declaratory judgment action seeking enforcement of the shareholder agreement's stock transfer provisions is excluded from coverage under the policy's contract exclusion as an action arising out of the insured's contractual obligations under the shareholder agreement. This litigation was covered by Law360 extensively and reported on five times, most recently after the Second Circuit's decision was handed down. 

Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and James K. Thurston

Thurston, Murphy-Petros and Meer Obtain Affirmance in D&O Coverage Case

Jim Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL), Melissa Murphy-Petros (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) prevailed on behalf of the firm’s insurance client in a case involving an insured closely held family corporation that sought coverage under its D&O policy for a declaratory judgment action seeking enforcement of the stock transfer provisions in its shareholders’ agreements. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the policy’s contract exclusion precluded coverage because the declaratory judgment action – although not an action for breach of contract – arose out of the insured’s contractual obligations under the shareholder agreements. Jim and Jonathan secured the dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Jim and Melissa handled the Second Circuit briefing, and Melissa presented oral argument.  Jim and Melissa are now 8-1 before the U.S. Court of Appeals, where they have handled matters in the First, Second, and Ninth Circuits.

The appeal was covered by Law360 in their June 22, 2023, December 5, 2023, March 22, 2024, March 27, 2024, June 17, 2024 articles.

James K. Thurston, Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and Jonathan E. Meer

Murphy-Petros, Thurston, Tranen and Butterfield Score Team Victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) Jim Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL), Daniel Tranen (Partner-St. Louis, MO), and Chad Butterfield (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) convinced the Nevada District Court that coverage was not available under a $5 million D&O policy for the putative claims by a bankruptcy litigation trustee against a former officer (Kay). Kay allegedly breached his fiduciary duties to an insured entity when he failed to uncover the criminal fraud of its former CEO (Rogas). The Court followed Wilson Elser’s arguments that Kay’s breaches were “arising from” Rogas’s prior fraud and, therefore, fell within the purview of the exclusionary language of a warranty letter executed by Rogas, wherein he represented that “no insured” (including Rogas) had knowledge or information of any act or error that might give rise to a claim. Following briefing and oral argument by Melissa, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that despite two non-imputation clauses in the policy and allegations of wrongdoing by Rogas after the warranty letter, “the broad language excluding any claim ‘arising from’ pre-execution knowledge” was sufficient to bar any coverage to Kay under the policy. This three-office victory evidences the successful collaboration between Wilson Elser’s coverage, litigation and appellate attorneys on an economical basis without having to use additional local counsel.

Melissa A. Murphy-Petros, James K. Thurston, Daniel E. Tranen and Chad C. Butterfield

Ninth Circuit Victory in Coverage Case Involving the El Chapo Drug Cartel

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago), Jim Thurston (Partner-Chicago) and Paul White (Partner-Los Angeles) prevailed in a coverage action before the Ninth Circuit. The underlying action involved the insured’s sale of a scientific manufacturing facility in Mexico without telling the buyer that the facility had been taken over by the El Chapo drug cartel. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of our Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis of the policy’s contract exclusion, finding that the underlying action – which stated claims for fraud – was an action “based on, arising from, or in any way related to an actual or alleged breach of contract.” This decision is important because the underlying action sought damages only for tort claims, and there were no breach of contract claims. Further, certain of the alleged wrongful acts occurred prior to the formation of any contract, yet both courts held the exclusion still had application. Although there was no claim for indemnity, the insured sought $5 million in defense costs.

This appeal has been reported on four times by Law360:

9th Circ. Won't Revive PE Firm's 'El Chapo' Insurance Dispute

Firm Faces Skeptical 9th Circ. In 'El Chapo' Insurance Dispute

Insurer Urges 9th Circ. To Toss Appeal In 'El Chapo' Dispute

PE Firm Tells 9th Circ. It's Owed Defense In Fraud Suit
 

Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and James K. Thurston

Drug equipment

Firm Highlights

Events
Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims
Gregory McGroarty (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) will moderate the New Jersey Defense Association’s webinar “Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims,” on May 1, 2026. Greg, alongside industry professionals from YA Group, MC Consultants, and Rimkus, will offer practical insights on evaluating and defending common claims that can disrupt business operations. Topics covered include premises liability strategies for slip-and-fall accidents, injury considerations in low-speed motor vehicle accidents, and the effective assessment of business property damage and interruption claims.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Expands Design Professionals and Construction Practices with New Denver Partner
New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.
Read more
Client Wins
Brinker and Heydari Secure Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case
Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.
Read more
Events
Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA
Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Rossi Defeat Claims Against Property Owner in Tenant Injury Lawsuit
Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.
Read more
News
Super Lawyers Names Three to 2026 Virginia Rising Stars List
Super Lawyers® has named three Wilson Elser attorneys to the 2026 Virginia Rising Stars™ list: Rising Stars Natalie B. Jacobs (Associate) – Professional Liability: Defense Haley B. Mathis (Of Counsel) – Business Litigation Hariton J. Wilson (Associate) – Civil Litigation: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.
Read more
Events
ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management
Andrew Albright (Partner-Chicago) and Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management” on April 30, 2026. The webinar examines how courts treat voluntary industry safety standards in product liability cases, including their admissibility at trial and how these standards are used by experts to evaluate product design and safety. Using a revolving-door injury case by way of example, the webinar will discuss how ANSI standards (including ANSI/BHMA A156.27, governing power-operated revolving doors) are applied in product liability litigation. The session will also review relevant case law, including Illinois authority, addressing the admissibility and evidentiary role of industry standards. The webinar is designed for attorneys, claims professionals, and risk managers who handle product liability matters and seek a practical understanding of how ANSI standards influence trial, expert testimony, litigation strategy, and risk management.
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
Read more
Client Wins
Brinker and Heydari Secure Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case
Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Expands Design Professionals and Construction Practices with New Denver Partner
New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.
Read more
Events
Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims
Gregory McGroarty (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) will moderate the New Jersey Defense Association’s webinar “Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims,” on May 1, 2026. Greg, alongside industry professionals from YA Group, MC Consultants, and Rimkus, will offer practical insights on evaluating and defending common claims that can disrupt business operations. Topics covered include premises liability strategies for slip-and-fall accidents, injury considerations in low-speed motor vehicle accidents, and the effective assessment of business property damage and interruption claims.
Read more
Events
Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA
Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Rossi Defeat Claims Against Property Owner in Tenant Injury Lawsuit
Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.
Read more
News
Super Lawyers Names Three to 2026 Virginia Rising Stars List
Super Lawyers® has named three Wilson Elser attorneys to the 2026 Virginia Rising Stars™ list: Rising Stars Natalie B. Jacobs (Associate) – Professional Liability: Defense Haley B. Mathis (Of Counsel) – Business Litigation Hariton J. Wilson (Associate) – Civil Litigation: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.
Read more
Events
ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management
Andrew Albright (Partner-Chicago) and Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management” on April 30, 2026. The webinar examines how courts treat voluntary industry safety standards in product liability cases, including their admissibility at trial and how these standards are used by experts to evaluate product design and safety. Using a revolving-door injury case by way of example, the webinar will discuss how ANSI standards (including ANSI/BHMA A156.27, governing power-operated revolving doors) are applied in product liability litigation. The session will also review relevant case law, including Illinois authority, addressing the admissibility and evidentiary role of industry standards. The webinar is designed for attorneys, claims professionals, and risk managers who handle product liability matters and seek a practical understanding of how ANSI standards influence trial, expert testimony, litigation strategy, and risk management.
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
Read more
Client Wins
Brinker and Heydari Secure Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case
Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Expands Design Professionals and Construction Practices with New Denver Partner
New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.
Read more
Events
Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims
Gregory McGroarty (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) will moderate the New Jersey Defense Association’s webinar “Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims,” on May 1, 2026. Greg, alongside industry professionals from YA Group, MC Consultants, and Rimkus, will offer practical insights on evaluating and defending common claims that can disrupt business operations. Topics covered include premises liability strategies for slip-and-fall accidents, injury considerations in low-speed motor vehicle accidents, and the effective assessment of business property damage and interruption claims.
Read more
Events
Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA
Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
Your Privacy Choices
We value your privacy. Under privacy laws in your jurisdiction, you have the right to control how your personal information is used, including the right to opt out of the “sale” or “sharing” of your personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising. You may also limit the use of your sensitive personal information.

Below, you can review and adjust your cookie and data sharing preferences. For more information about how we use your data, please see our Privacy Policy.

Your Rights and Choices

Opt Out of Sale or Sharing: You may opt out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for advertising and analytics purposes by turning off Advertising & Targeting Cookies. We will honor your choice and will not sell or share your personal information for these purposes unless you enable these cookies again. Wilson Elser does not sell or share personal information in any other manner.

Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information: If we collect sensitive personal information, you may limit its use to only what is necessary to provide requested services by adjusting your preferences here. Please contact privacy@wilsonelser.com with any questions.

Global Privacy Control: We honor browser-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (GPC). If we detect such a signal, your opt-out preference will be automatically applied.
These cookies are essential for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually set in response to actions made by you, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, or filling in forms.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They may be set through our site by us or our analytics partners to understand your interests and deliver more relevant content to you. If you do not allow these cookies, we will not know when you have visited our site
Privacy Settings