Serving as national counsel, we provide coverage opinions and advise carrier as to appropriate and consistent claims handling for multiple property claims, including hurricane, wind, fire, vandalism, water damage, hail, and similar perils. Where applicable, we manage local counsel and help shape strategy for discovery, briefing, trial, and settlement. We have defended depositions, defended subpoenas, and mediated claims on the client's behalf. We also directly defend such claims regionally. We have performed similar functions as national coordinating counsel for mold, Y2K, and liability/casualty claims.

Successful defense of financial institutions, loan servicers and finance companies in multiple claims and cases involving borrower allegations of predatory lending and violation of state and federal consumer protection statutes. Our representation also included the resolution of force-placed insurance claims and title defects.

When an insurance company faced allegations of bad faith and breach of contract for denying coverage for fire loss claims made by an insured, they turned to Dinsmore for counsel. A fire occurred at the plaintiff’s residence while he was at work, which resulted in property damage. The plaintiff then filed a claim under their homeowners’ policy. During the investigation, it was determined that the plaintiff misrepresented his financial condition and the value of jewelry and other household items allegedly lost in the fire. Additionally, an independent investigator concluded that the fire was intentionally set. Our client subsequently denied the plaintiff’s claim for breaching the “Concealment or Fraud” provision of the policy. The plaintiff then filed suit against our client for bad faith and breach of contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment and our motion was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The court found that the plaintiff had made numerous misrepresentations during the investigation, and subsequently had violated the policy. The ruling disposed of the claims without the expense of a trial.

I successfully represented an insurance agent who had been sued for misrepresentation in selling an employee benefit plan to a small business. The plan included disability and life insurance benefits. When an employee sought substantial benefits beyond those set forth in the policy, I filed and argued a motion to dismiss, invoking contract law and the ERISA statute, which required benefits to be described in writing, preempting common law misrepresentation claims. I thus obtained a dismissal of claims from state court due to exclusive federal jurisdiction over the alleged claims for benefits beyond those set forth in the written ERISA plan.

Our firm defended a large national insurance company on claims that it violated the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act in implementing claim handling processes for casualty claims involving soft tissue injuries arising from minor impact automobile accidents which the plaintiff contended were improper. Class certification was denied, and thereafter the insurance company won a defense verdict in a highly publicized trial of the bad faith claim of the individual plaintiff who had sought $1.45 billion in damages.

We represented an insurance company in a suit for breach of insurance contract and bad faith arising out of the client’s decision not to pay death benefits under an occupational accident insurance policy. The case was removed to federal court and summary judgment was granted in favor of the insurance company.

I provided coverage opinions to a large insurance company on complex issues arising out of an alleged scheme by alcohol manufacturers to market and sell to underage consumers. The underlying plaintiffs sought to pursue a class action on behalf of the underage consumers and their parents, alleging intentional actions and certain negligent actions by the alcohol manufacturers. The manufacturers, in turn, sought insurance coverage. The coverage opinion addressed a number of issues, including the alleged marketing plans of these consumer products manufacturers and whether these could form the basis for a duty to defend or duty to indemnify under the insurance policies.

We defended a national insurance company in a putative class action case regarding the application of an insurance premium tax in the state of Kentucky. Kentucky statutes authorize Kentucky cities and counties to impose and collect a tax on insurance premiums. The statute permits insurance companies to collect the tax and keep a portion of the amount they have collected upon remittance of the appropriate amount to the taxing body. The proposed class consisted of all persons or entities in the state who paid a surcharge on their insurance premiums pursuant to a tax imposed by a local government. The proposed class definition contained no time limit as to the claims asserted.

The plaintiffs argued that the insurance premium tax should have been paid by the insurance companies, and not the policyholders. They also alleged that the tax had been miscalculated by the insurance company in some jurisdictions. The plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief that the insurance companies be prohibited from collecting the tax from the policyholders. Alternatively, if it was determined that the companies were permitted to collect the tax from policyholders, the plaintiffs sought an accounting to determine if the tax had been properly calculated for each policyholder, with the cost of the accounting to be paid by the insurance companies.

We removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied. We also filed a motion to dismiss asserting that under the applicable state statutes the insurance premium tax was properly charged to the policyholders. We also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the appropriate state agency prior to filing suit, as required by state statute. The motion to dismiss was granted.

Represented a national insurance company against claims of bad faith, breach of contract and negligence. Plaintiff’s home suffered wind damage and water loss in October 2007, but the plaintiff failed to file suit against her insurer until March 2009. The Southern District of Ohio held that the plaintiff’s claims for coverage and negligence were barred by the policy’s one-year suit limitations provision, and the insurer had not waived the limitations period. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for our client.

Represented a national insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith. Plaintiff was the owner of apartment complex, which suffered a roof collapse, causing exterior and interior damage, as well as multiple uninhabitable living units. Both plaintiff and defendant hired roof inspectors to determine cause of collapse, although interpretations of reports were disputed by both sides. Our client eventually paid out for a new roof and repair of interior damages; however, plaintiff alleged that our client did not fully pay out for loss of income as dictated on policy. The Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to our client on grounds that our client was reasonably justified in withholding payment throughout the course of its investigation.

Ongoing service as President of West Virginia Insurance Federation since 2004. Conduct a number of administrative duties, including day-to-day operations, reviewing and monitoring applicable legislation, lobbying on behalf of or in opposition to legislation, drafting and introducing legislation, drafting amendments and providing testimony regarding legislation. Duties also include distributing regular reports on legislation, meeting regularly with company representatives and lobbyists, monitoring interim committees, scheduling committee and board meetings, working with the Insurance Commissioner’s Office and other regulatory agencies, and assisting in distribution of materials, such as media releases and editorials.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented the Plaintiff, a British based plc, in insurance coverage litigation relating to the MDL Phen-Fen litigation. The case was settled.