Part of a team that obtained favorable decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, vacating a $5 million arbitration award against London Market reinsurers.  We represented all reinsurers on the first layer.  Utilizing the standards established by the Second Circuit for “evident partiality,” the Southern District Court found in its 24 page opinion that the award warranted vacatur based upon an arbitrator’s “evident partiality” and lack of disclosure concerning his business relationships with the principals of one of the parties.

Obtained summary judgment when representing a national insurer in a coverage dispute with a school board related to an EPLI notice claim.  

Was part of defense team that Obtained Summary Judgment in a Declaratory Judgment action in which the plaintiff sought a defense and indemnification for an underlying Law Division action brought by a policyholder’s human resources manager asserting gender discrimination and retaliation. The coverage dispute arose because our client took the position that the human resources manager's claim for which the policyholder sought coverage was not "first made" during the applicable policy period.  Discovery in the Declaratory Judgment Action established that the manager's later filed Law Division action alleged identical facts and causes of action when compared to those asserted in an earlier filed EEOC complaint. In granting summary judgment to our client, the Court determined that inasmuch as the factual assertions of the manager's Law Division Action "were derived from the same, or essentially the same, facts alleged in the EEOC proceeding," that the manager's Law Division employment action was "first made" with her filing of the EEOC complaint.  The Court ruled further that the Law Division claim fell under the express and unambiguous terms of an exclusion within the insurance policy precluding coverage for claims which were derived from the same, or essentially the same, facts alleged in a previously unreported proceeding.  Last, the Court determined that the claims asserted were not covered by the policy because the claim was not "first made" during the applicable policy period and our client was entitled to Summary Judgment.