Source: https://nicolaidesllp.com/practices/primary-and-excess-general-liability
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:49:16+00:00

Document:
We represent clients in contribution and subrogation disputes with other insurers. Where appropriate and necessary, we also assist our clients to reform or rescind policies based on misrepresentations or mistakes made during the underwriting process.
Judgment granted in favor of insurer, negating over $13 million in potential exposure, based on district court ruling that allegations of false advertising and disparagement, as set forth in ten underlying class action lawsuits, were not “of and concerning” the underlying claimants, and therefore did not implicate “personal and advertising injury” coverage under the applicable liability policy. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC, 735 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2013).
Judgment granted in favor of insurer finding no coverage for class action settlement of claim for improper dissemination of personal medical information. Illinois National Ins. Co. v. Walgreen Co., No. 10 CH 46903 (ll. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2011).
Judgment granted in favor of insurer under California law involving the issue of whether third-party “property damage” occurred when insured’s defective containers prevented access to otherwise unaffected fruit products. Silgan Containers v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 434 F. App’x 709 (9th Cir. 2011).
Judgment granted in favor of insurer under Florida law involving the issue of whether allegations of price-fixing in an antitrust suit implicated “advertising injury” offense of “use of another’s ‘advertising idea.’” Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Ill. Nat’l Ins. Co., 657 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2011).
Judgment granted in favor of insurer on number of occurrences issue. Mitsui Sumitomo Ins. Co. of Am. v. Automatic Elevator, 2011 WL 4103752 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2011).
At trial prosecuted by Nicolaides’ trial attorneys and monitored by Nicolaides’ appellate attorneys, obtained judgment of no coverage for deceptive trade practices claims arising out of defective water heater chambers. Court found no “occurrence” and that insured failed to allocate between covered and non-covered “property damage.” Judgment upheld by Nicolaides’ appellate team on appeal. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Puget Plastics Corp., 735 F. Supp. 2d 650 (S.D. Tex. 2010), aff’d, 454 F. App’x 291 (5th Cir. 2011).
Judgment granted in favor of insurer finding that a class action settlement for defective mold resistant decking was not an “occurrence” and that umbrella policy contained a “your product exclusion,” which precluded coverage for the settlement. Advanced Envtl. Recycling Techs., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 399 F. App’x 869 (5th Cir. 2010).
Obtained summary judgment, and affirmation from the Third Circuit, that general liability and D&O insurers owed no obligation to reimburse $16.8 million in attorneys fees incurred to defend litigation against a tobacco company arising out of the nonprofit insured’s anti-smoking campaign. Am. Legacy Found. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 623 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2010).
Judgment granted in favor of insurer finding that claimant’s attempt to enforce a $7 million consent judgment entered without the insurers’ consent breached the policy terms. The claimant also sought $70 million in punitive damages for bad faith. Both courts found that the insurer did not commit bad faith in the handling of the claim. Gallina v. Commerce & Indus. Ins., 375 F. App’x 935 (11th Cir. 2010).
Judgment granted in favor of insurer under Florida law involving the issue of whether allegations of price-fixing in an antitrust suit implicated “advertising injury” offense of “use of another’s advertising idea.” Celotex Corp. v. AIU Ins. Co., 216 B.R. 867 and 222 B.R. 644 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998), aff’d, In re Celotex Corp., 299 Fed. Appx. 850 (11th Cir. July 7, 2008).

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