Significant Cases

FMG Obtains 7 Figure Settlement On Behalf of Insured in E&O Case

Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP recently obtained a seven figure plus settlement on behalf of an insurer client in connection with a Negligence and Breach of Contract action against one of the Insurer’s Binding Agents.…

Download Now

Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP recently obtained a seven figure plus settlement on behalf of an insurer client in connection with a Negligence and Breach of Contract action against one of the Insurer’s Binding Agents. The Binding Agent was authorized to bind and write contracts of insurance for certain classes and lines of business and types of risks on behalf of the Insurer, including excess/umbrella coverage. The insurer retained FMG to file an action against the Binding Agent for improperly underwriting, processing, handling, and billing a request for umbrella/excess coverage and issuing an insurance policy that failed to include language limiting coverage to that which was requested and paid for by the insured.

In April 2014, the Binding Agent was approached by an insurance broker seeking a competitive quote with respect to an application for Umbrella/Excess Insurance for a transportation client (the “Insured”).  Through aggressive discovery requests and detailed deposition questioning, we were able to elicit documentary evidence and testimony showing the broker indisputably sought umbrella/excess coverage for only eleven specific vehicles owned or operated by the Insured. However, throughout the underwriting process, including the quoting process, the binding process, and the policy issuing process, the Binding Agent negligently failed to include appropriate language to limit the subject policy to the eleven specific vehicles set forth on the vehicle list provided by the Insured.

Indeed, we obtained damaging testimony from the Binding Agent’s Underwriter that he could have included a Designated Operations Limitation provision into the policy, which would have limited the policy’s coverage to the intended eleven vehicles. Rather than include the Designated Operations Limitation, the Underwriter included a Follow Form provision, which incorporated the coverage from the underlying policy, which in this case, covered the Insured’s entire fleet of over 140 vehicles. The Binding Agent’s cumulative failures ultimately resulted in the issuance of a policy covering many more vehicles – over 140 vehicles – then the eleven specified by the Insured, even though the Binding Agent only assessed the Insured a premium for eleven vehicles and billed the insured for eleven vehicles.

Compounding the Binding Agent’s failures further, during the underwriting process, and before the insurance policy was issued by the Binding Agent, a vehicle operated by the Insured was involved in a serious accident  resulting in several individuals being significantly injured and three others killed. Although the Binding Agent was aware the vehicle involved in the accident was not designated by the Insured as one of the eleven for which the Insured sought excess coverage, the Binding Agent failed to bring this to the attention of the Insurer for over two years.

As a result of the Binding Agent’s negligence, the Insurer was required to provide insurance coverage to the Insured for the losses arising out of the aforementioned fatal accident, and for the compensatory damages in the litigation filed as a result of the accident. When the Insurer demanded reimbursement from the Binding Agent, after tendering the policy limits of the Umbrella/Excess Insurance policy to the injured plaintiffs and the estates of the deceased plaintiffs, for the costs incurred as a result of the Binding Agent’s errors, the Binding Agent rejected the demand, causing the Insurer to seek redress through litigation.

At the Settlement Conference in federal court, facing the plethora of facts we elicited in discovery showing its failures in underwriting the subject policy, the Binding Agent acknowledged its errors and omissions, and agreed to offer a significant portion of the damages sought in order to resolve the matter.

Paul Piantino, Partner and Chair of the Newark Office and Zachary Danner, Senior Counsel from the Cherry Hill Office, handled the litigation for FMG.

Professionals

More Successes

FMG Obtains Summary Judgment in Landlord Liability Case in Georgia

Attorneys Wayne Melnick and Sangeetha Krishnakumar won summary judgment for FMG clients in Fulton County, Georgia. Plaintiff, the surviving parent and administrator of her son’s estate, brought suit against a property owner alleging theories of premises liability/negligent security against FMG’s…

FMG Obtains Dismissal of Insurance Coverage / Bad Faith Action in Kentucky

Lienholders sued officers of a defunct corporation, alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. They sought more than $18 million for work and materials in the construction of a cannabis processing plant in Western…

Massachusetts Federal Court Dismisses Legal Malpractice Case

Attorneys Jessica Kelly and Andrew Vandini obtained full dismissal of a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on the ground that the Massachusetts court lacked personal jurisdiction over our clients,…

FMG Attorneys Obtain Summary Judgment Win in Trust Case in Massachusetts

FMG attorneys Jessica Kelly and Nancy Reimer obtained summary judgment for our client who served as a trustee of a marital trust.  The surviving wife of the settler of the trust was unhappy with the…

FMG Wins Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit in Oklahoma

FMG Attorneys David Cole and Matt Foree won a motion to dismiss in a class action lawsuit filed against Oklahoma City University involving a data breach that occurred in July 2022. The proposed class action…

FMG Obtains Summary Judgment in Georgia Wage and Hour Case

FMG attorneys John Bennett and Bill Buechner recently prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a major construction company in connection with multi-plaintiff claims for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards…

Summary Judgment Win in Personal Injury Case in Georgia

FMG Attorneys Jennifer Adair and Aaron Miller succeeded in their motion for summary judgment on behalf of Tryphena’s Garden, a wedding venue where a guest claimed she tripped and fell due to a faulty entry…

FMG Attorneys Obtain Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Action in Massachusetts

FMG Attorneys Nancy Reimer, Jessica Kelly, and Brendan Collins obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s legal malpractice action as untimely. FMG’s client previously represented the plaintiff in an action brought by a condominium association seeking to…

FMG Wins Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit

FMG Attorneys David Cole and Matt Foree won a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against Oklahoma City University over a July 2022 data breach. The proposed class action alleged the University failed…

Summary Judgment Win in Georgia

Jennifer Adair and Aaron Miller obtained summary judgment on behalf of Tryphena’s Garden, a wedding venue where a guest claimed she tripped and fell due to a faulty entry ramp. Counsel were able to establish…

Dismissal of High-Value Fraud Claim in Kentucky Federal Court

FMG attorneys Kyle Virgin and Austin Anderson obtained dismissal of all claims against their client in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, with Chief Judge Danny Reeves presiding. The plaintiff sought repayment…

Summary Judgment Win in Pregnancy and Wrongful Termination Claim in California

John Rubiner and Tyler Jacobs from FMG’s Los Angeles office won summary judgment on behalf of California State University at Northridge in Los Angeles County Superior Court in an employment case involving claims by a…