Andy serves as coverage and monitoring counsel for insurers in first and third party actions encompassing the following types of policies and claims: Cyber Liability, D&O, E&O, EPL, CGL, Fidelity, Surety and Performance, Commercial Property, Workers' Compensation and Side B, Public Officials and Police Practices. His practice includes defense and prosecution of coverage declaratory judgment and bad faith actions related to the above types of claims.
Andy’s practice also involves representation of businesses, individuals, partners, shareholders, directors and/or officers, and public entities and officials, in matters involving wrongful acts, breaches of contract, fiduciary duty, self-dealing, non-compete agreements, non-solicitation agreements, professional errors and omissions, “business divorces” and fraud. Andy also dedicates a significant portion of his practice to the representation of clients in business transactions involving negotiation and drafting agreements related to employment, asset purchases, partnerships and intellectual property. He represents individuals, doctors, healthcare practice groups, healthcare industry professionals, accountants, small to medium size businesses and other types of professionals in these types of transactions.
Andrew L. (Andy) Indeck
Partner, Board of Directors, Chair – Insurance and Reinsurance Practice Group and Commercial Litigation Group
In a case of first impression in New Jersey, the New Jersey Appellate Division Affirmed the Granting of Summary Judgment in favor of National Union, in a case interpreting an “insured vs. insured” exclusion in a directors and officers (D&O) liability policy, and rejected the contention that proof of collusion is a prerequisite to applying the exclusion. In Abboud v. Nation Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA ,( A-3434-14T1)(June 21, 2017), Plaintiff Michael Abboud initially sued Monarch Medical PET Services LLC and four of its members and managers, alleging that they tried to remove him from Monarch’s board of managers and his position as its Chief Executive Officer. In their responsive pleadings, Monarch and the individual defendants asserted various counterclaims against Abboud. Abboud then sought indemnity and a defense in connection with counterclaims made against him from defendant National Union. National Union subsequently denied coverage based upon the insured vs. insured exclusion. Abboud filed a Declaratory Judgment action against National Union which resulted in a Summary Judgment dismissal in favor of National Union, and this appeal followed. In affirming the decision below the Appellate Division considered the “ insured vs. insured” exclusion, and held that despite the historical underpinnings of the development of this exclusion, proof of collusion is not a pre-requisite to applying the exclusion. Furthermore, the Court reinforced an important rule of policy construction, to wit, if the plain language of a policy exclusion is clear and unambiguous, it will be enforced as written.
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.
Obtained a favorable unanimous decision on February 11, 2016, before New Jersey’s Supreme Court on behalf of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., in the matter of Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2016 N.J. LEXIS 144. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that because the National Union Directors and Officers “claims made” policy was not a contract of adhesion but was agreed to by sophisticated parties, National Union was not required to demonstrate appreciable prejudice before disclaiming coverage due to the insured’s failure to give notice of the claim “as soon as practicable.” Prior decisions had enforced the “as soon as practicable” reporting condition without requiring an insurer to demonstrate “appreciable prejudice” from an untimely reported claim, but those decisions all involved circumstances where the claim had been reported outside of the policy period. Templo addressed a novel issue because first notice of the claim had been given within the policy period, but not “as soon as practicable.” In Templo the New Jersey Supreme Court found the term “as soon as practicable” was clear and unambiguous and accordingly should be interpreted as written absent a compelling public policy to ignore its otherwise unambiguous meaning. The decision focused and turned upon the plain and unambiguous terms of a negotiated Directors and Officers insurance contract entered into between sophisticated business entities.” Templo, 2016 N.J. LEXIS at *35. The Templo decision represents an expanded application of the “as soon as practicable” reporting requirement of “claims made” policies to situations where the claim is first made and reported during the policy period but nonetheless is not reported to the carrier as soon as practicable.
Professional & Community Involvement
CLM, Claims and Litigation Management Alliance
Member, PLUS, Professional Liability Underwriting Society
Board Member, Hunterdon County YMCA Board of Trustees
973.242.1364 ext. 9027