Source: http://rc.com/people/DanielFSullivan.cfm
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:38:48+00:00

Document:
Daniel Sullivan is a trial lawyer with over 30 years of experience representing clients in complex commercial disputes, with an emphasis on insurance coverage and extra-contractual claims litigation. He has represented clients in state and federal courts in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. Dan has been involved in appeals to the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, and Fourth Circuits and the Appellate and Supreme Courts of Connecticut, as well as numerous arbitration and mediation proceedings. He has substantial trial experience, having tried more than 25 matters to verdict, final judgment, or final arbitration decision.
Dan’s work representing insurance companies in complex property insurance coverage litigation includes serving as counsel for insurers in significant cases arising from Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene, Hurricane Ike, Hurricane Katrina, and the September 11 terrorist attacks. He has also litigated cases involving losses to residences and businesses arising from catastrophic fires and explosions, mold contamination, defective workmanship, and construction defects. In addition, he has litigated substantial cases arising under liability, marine, boiler and machinery, and builders’ risk policies.
Dan's experience includes coordinating a major insurer’s investigation, coverage analysis and litigation regarding claims for damages associated with Chinese-made drywall; representation of a commercial property insurer in a case involving a $100 million claim by a publicly traded company for claimed losses arising from an arson fire; and representation of an insurance carrier in coverage litigation initiated by a major Roman Catholic archdiocese seeking coverage for a multimillion-dollar settlement with alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse.
Dan has also represented other businesses in a broad spectrum of commercial litigation. He was lead litigation and trial counsel for an international pharmaceutical company in its initial response to, investigation of, and litigation arising from an explosion that resulted in serious personal injuries and significant property damage. Dan has represented financial institutions in challenges to the validity of mortgages and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). Most recently, he assisted in the successful defense of a national actuarial firm in a malpractice case involving claims asserted by a municipal pension system. His other case experience includes the trial and appeal of dissolution and shareholder derivative actions which established the scope of the business judgment rule in the state of Connecticut and a murder case that was a case study on the issue of time of death in Dr. Henry Lee's book Cracking Cases: The Science of Solving Crime.
Dan has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America© in the area of Insurance Law since 2006 and selected to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2007 to 2018. For ten years, he was a member of the adjunct faculty at the University of Connecticut School of Law, where he developed and taught a graduate-level course in property insurance law. He frequently speaks on insurance and litigation-related issues to bar and industry organizations and provides in-house training sessions to insurance company personnel on coverage issues and trial tactics. Dan previously served as co-chair of the firm’s Litigation Section and chair of the firm’s Insurance + Reinsurance Practice Group and was a founding member and the original partner-in-charge of the firm's Providence office. He also contributes to the firm's Property Insurance Coverage Insights and Data Privacy + Security Insider blogs.
Ardente v. Standard Fire Insurance Company, 744 F.3d 815 (1st Cir. 2014) - Obtained reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit of a district court judgment finding that manufacturing defect exclusion in yacht insurance policy was ambiguous. The First Circuit panel, which included retired Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, agreed with our client's position that the latent defect exception to the manufacturing defect exclusion was not ambiguous and the damage to the yacht did not fall within that exception, and directed the district court to enter judgment in favor of our client.
City of Providence v. Buck Consultants, 2015 WL 7083732 (D.R.I. 2015) – District court granted summary judgment in favor of pension actuary where City alleged the actuary erroneously overestimated the savings associated with negotiated pension reforms, including suspension of cost of living adjustments, with police officers, firefighter and retirees, on grounds that City’s damages were too speculative.
Lombardi v. Universal North America Insurance Company, 2015 WL 600823 (Conn. Super. 2015) - In a case of first impression under Connecticut law, the Superior Court held anti-concurrent cause provision in property insurance policy was unambiguous and enforceable and applied to defeat claim for destruction of shoreline home resulting from Tropical Storm Irene.
City of Providence v. Buck Consultants, 2013 WL 4047133 (D.R.I. 2013) – District court granted motion to dismiss City’s false claims act count, concluding that the actuarial services were not “worthless” and the element of scienter had not been adequately pled.
Boisse v. Miller, 2103 R.I. Super. LEXIS 155 (R.I. Super. 2013) – Following bench trial of liability issues, court found for insurer defendant in direct action statute action that it had no liability under CGL policy because claims involved pure economic injury, and thus they had not demonstrated they sustained property damage. The court also concluded there was no occurrence, because contractor’s work, while negligent, was not accidental. Finally, the court concluded that the loss resulted from the contractor’s negligent workmanship and was thus excluded by the express terms of the policy.
Pfizer, Inc. v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, 45 Conn. L. Rptr. (Conn. Super. 2008) – Denial of manufacturer defendant’s motion for summary judgment in cases arising from explosion at facility in Groton, Connecticut on grounds that there existed genuine issues of fact as to product liability and recklessness counts of case against manufacturer based on its claimed failure to account for and disclose relevant safety and storage information of risks involved in the transport and storage of chemical reagent at ambient temperatures.
Figueroa v. Allstate Insurance Company, 105 Conn. App. 538, 938 A.2d 1264 (2008), cert denied, 286 Conn. 912, 944 A.2d 982 (2008) – Affirming Superior Court’s granting summary judgment in favor of insurer in $4.35 million direct action statute claim holding there was no coverage in effect when plaintiff was injured.
Represented insurer in connection with its investigation of a fire loss at a former manufacturing plant in Rhode Island where the authorities discovered an illegal butane hash oil manufacturing operation and violation of the policy’s protective safeguards endorsement.
Represented builder’s risk insurer in its investigation and adjustment of a claim arising from the collapse of the steel structure of an indoor football practice facility being built on a university campus and claimed faulty workmanship of a subcontractor in its erection of the steel.
Represented affiliate of a national insurance company in its response to claims for losses associated with the effects of Chinese-made drywall, including development of investigative protocols and coverage analysis and representation in a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that there is no coverage under property insurance policies for the cost of replacing and remediating the effects of the drywall. After oral argument before the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia, summary judgment was entered in favor of our client in the first federal court decision in the country deciding coverage issues for Chinese drywall under homeowners policies. On appeal, the coverage issues were certified to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in favor of our client's position.
Represented an insurance carrier in the defense of an adversary proceeding brought by Chapter 7 trustee and creditor banks of a publicly traded corporation involving a claim for over $100 million of inventory allegedly damaged in a warehouse fire. Representation included coordination of fire investigation (determined to be arson), investigation of company’s books and records to help discover and quantify fraud in the insured’s business practices and in presentment of the inventory loss, and representation of carrier in criminal proceedings involving company’s directors and officers.
Represented insurer in claim brought by Alabama based seller of Christian-based inspirational gift items, such as T-shirts and Bible covers, to recover business interruption losses and expenses in excess of $10 million and bad faith damages following a fire that damaged the insured's warehouse and inventory.
Represented commercial property insurers in coverage actions involving claims arising from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Represented commercial property insurers in several multimillion-dollar cases and claims involving business interruption losses in lower Manhattan arising from September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
Represented insurance carrier in coverage litigation initiated by major Roman Catholic archdiocese seeking coverage for multimillion-dollar settlement with alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse.
Represented property insurer in connection with a claim in excess of $20 million resulting from a catastrophic fire loss at a regional composting facility in Hartford, Connecticut.
Presented by the Connecticut Chapter of the International Association of Arson Investigators, the seminar was hosted for fire/arson investigators, police officers, counselors prosecuting or litigating fires, insurance – special investigation unit personnel, claims professionals, and claims legal personnel.
Presented by the National Business Institute (NBI), the recorded webcast offered guidance to prepare for the avoidance and countering of bad faith allegations. The program also shared insight on screening cases for bad faith potential, documenting investigations, and developing tools to deny bad faith in court.
Presented by the American Bar Association's Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section, Mr. Sullivan's session focused on the evolving coverage issues associated with ransomware and offered insight on how insurers are responding to this threat.
The presentation tackled the largely undefined standards for when, and under what circumstances, a policyholder is entitled to interim payment of undisputed amounts during an ongoing claim adjustment under the laws of all 50 states. The presentation also covered the considerations that factor into an insurer’s decision whether to issue such payments. The conference was attended by policyholder and defense property insurance lawyers from around the country.
Dan Sullivan Shares "A Defense Attorney’s Perspective for the Fire Investigator"
Insurance + Reinsurance Group lawyer Daniel F. Sullivan presented a program entitled "A Defense Attorney’s Perspective for the Fire Investigator," as part of the 33rd Annual Arson Investigators' Seminar in Rocky Hill, Connecticut on November 16, 2018. Presented by the Connecticut Chapter of the International Association of Arson Investigators, the seminar was hosted for fire/arson investigators, police officers, counselors prosecuting or litigating fires, insurance – special investigation unit personnel, claims professionals, and claims legal personnel.
Dan Sullivan Presents CLE Webcast on Insurance Bad Faith "Setups"
Insurance + Reinsurance Group lawyer Daniel F. Sullivan presented a program on “Insurance Bad Faith ‘Setups’” on November 8, 2018. Presented by the National Business Institute (NBI), the recorded webcast offered guidance to prepare for the avoidance and countering of bad faith allegations. The program also shared insight on screening cases for bad faith potential, documenting investigations, and developing tools to deny bad faith in court.
Insurance + Reinsurance Group lawyers Daniel F. Sullivan and Eugene P. Murphy presented at the Florida Advisory Committee on Arson Prevention 39th Annual Seminar, held at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on March 8, 2017. The conference was attended by almost 200 fire service, insurance, and legal professionals. In their session, "Preparing for and Providing Testimony in a Fire Case," they explored the different types and purposes of testimony in both civil and criminal cases; the development of law of expert testimony, including the recent decision of the Florida Supreme Court on the standard for admissibility of expert testimony; and common challenges to qualifications and methodology of experts in fire cases, including challenges related to NFPA 921 and NFPA 103. They also provided insight and advice on what experts in fire cases can expect both in the preparation for testifying and during cross-examination.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.