Source: https://www.martindale.com/scottsdale/arizona/robert-a-justman-25057803-a/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:35:56+00:00

Document:
Partner at Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P.
Rob represents insurance companies on coverage matters. He works with claims representatives, supervisors, managers, and counsel through the interpretation and application of insurance contracts. He drafts coverage opinions and crafts coverage position letters to uphold the insurance contract. He spends the majority of his time litigating coverage actions, including declaratory judgment actions, equitable contribution actions, and defending against coverage and bad faith actions.
Rob’s coverage practice touches each of the Rocky Mountain States. Rob offers coverage advice, recommendations, and prosecutes coverage actions in states around the country. But he focuses his coverage litigation in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Many of Rob’s coverage cases are forumed in Utah, where he holds an active Utah bar license. Arizona remains the home base and the hub of the coverage activity.
In any given case, the focus is on successfully representing the client. Yet it is equally important to Rob to forge a good working relationship with a foundation of rapport and trust. Good advice, counsel, and strategy coupled with collaboration is the goal. The time on the phone with the claims representative, supervisor, manager, or counsel is every bit as important to Rob as the time doing the work that wins the case.
If you have spoken with Rob, you know that outside the office he remains as busy as in the office. He is a proud parent of three children, and spends time with his wife, April, making memories with the children.
Representative Cases: City of Phoenix v. First State Insurance Company, et al ., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2018 WL 1616011 (9th Cir. 2018) (insurance carrier owed no coverage for $1.9 million in defense expenses and indemnity payments on wrongful death suit because self-insured retention would not be construed as eroding by payment of defense expenses and indemnity payments did not exceed the SIR).; Geurden v. Quantum Transportation, et al ., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2018 WL 1522481 (D.Ariz. 2018) (insurance carrier not bound by purported Damron Agreement for $25 million since the carrier did not actually breach the duty to defend and the anticipatory breach of policy obligations cannot be the predicate for a Damron Agreement).; Colony Insurance Company v. Estate of Lakeisha Anderson, 2016 WL 796983 (Ariz. App. 2016) (holding that $2.2 million judgment against insured group home for death of resident fell outside the coverage of claims-made-and-reported policy in effect at time of death because claim was not reported during the policy period, further, death fell outside the coverage of the second claims-made-and-reported policy given the retroactive date).; Nelson v. Navigator Insurance Company, 624 Fed.Appx. 599 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that general liability insurer did not provide coverage for $4.2 million judgment on spoliation of evidence suit under CGL Policy and Excess Policy because spoliation of evidence is for economic loss, not bodily injury or property damage, and the Insured's subjective expectation of coverage for the suit did not rise to the level of objective reasonableness under the evidence presented).; Continental Casualty Company v. Evans, 2015 WL 11120680 (D.Ariz. 2015) (insurer not liable on jury verdict against the insured for over $500,000 because prior knowledge exclusion in claims made policy barred coverage).; Nat 'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, et al. v. Lewis, M.D., et al ., 898 F. Supp . 2d 1132 (D.Ariz. 2012) (holding that general liability insurer did not have a duty to indemnify insured medical practice in eight underlying lawsuits for vicarious liability and negligent hiring, supervision and retention of cardiologist to the extent that the cardiologist groped and fondled the breasts of his female patients because such conduct, and all derivative theories of liability arising from such conduct, fell within the professional services exclusion).; American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania v. United National Ins. Co ., 2012 WL 2415540 (Ariz. App . 2012) (holding that settlement by client-insurer could not be undone by proposed intervenor-insurer as proposed intervenor-insurer did not seek timely intervention and lacked sufficient interest to merit intervention as of right).; Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Jones, 695 F. Supp . 2d 978 (D.Ariz. 2010) (motor vehicle exclusion precluded coverage for ATV accident on public street).; Monterey Homes Arizona, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company, 212 P. 3d 43 (Ariz. App . 2009) (holding that insurer should have been allowed to intervene to assert subrogation claim for attorney and expert fees).; Tilley v. Delci, 220 Ariz. 233, 204 P. 3d 1082 ( App . 2009) (defendant motorist was entitled to summary judgment as plaintiff motorist failed to create genuine issue of material fact).; Webb v. Gittlen, 217 Ariz. 363, 174 P. 3d 275 (2008) (insurance agent not bound by Damron agreement).

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