- Cyber Insurance
- D&O and Financial Institution Liability
- E&O Insurance Coverage Practice Regarding Lawyers, Accountants and Other Professionals
- Employment Practices Liability
- Fidelity Bonds and Commercial Crime Insurance
- General Liability
- Insurance & Bankruptcy
- Litigation Capability
- Media & Technology E&O
- Policy Drafting and Product Development
- Property Coverage
- Public Entities and Educational Institutions
- Representations and Warranties (R&W) Insurance
- Section 111 Insurer Reporting and MSP Reimbursement
Employment Practices Liability
We work with our insurance clients as both coverage counsel and monitoring counsel on employment practices matters throughout the country. We counsel clients on the wide range of issues that arise under these policies, including the right to independent counsel, what constitutes an employment practices claim, covered loss, and allocation. We regularly advise clients on coverage and exposure, participate in mediations, and litigate coverage issues.
Representative recent matters include the following:
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. LPM Healthcare, Inc., No. 18-cv-3749 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2018). Wiley Rein successfully represented an insurer, which prevailed in a declaratory judgment action that the insured violated the policy’s cooperation clause, which eliminated the duty to defend and indemnify.
- Scottsdale Indem. Co. v. Convercent, Inc., 2017 WL 5446093 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2017). We represented an insurer in a declaratory judgment action and obtained a ruling that our client had no duty to defend an EEOC charge and related lawsuit on the basis that a letter predating the charge and lawsuit was a “claim” first made prior to the policy period.
- Summers v. Scottsdale Indem. Co., 2016 WL 1268295 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016). Wiley Rein represented an insurer in an action under an EPL policy for rescission and declaratory judgment against an insured that had failed to disclose two prior sexual harassment lawsuits in its application for coverage. We obtained summary judgment.
- Turbyfill v. Scottsdale Indem. Co., 2016 WL 741657 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2016). We represented an insurer, which prevailed in an action under an EPL policy where the court agreed with the carrier that inappropriate touching of a sedated patient, while likely “sexual misconduct,” was not “harassment” within the meaning of the policy and that coverage for such acts likely would violate Florida public policy.