Lawrence Gottlieb

Upholding the dismissal of Porter Brothers' claims for insurance bad faith and violations of IFCA against our client, RLI who issued two surety bonds to subcontractor Kenco.

No coverage was afforded under our client’s Difference in Conditions policy for property damages allegedly caused by faulty workmanship and wind-driven rain.

The $10,000,000 in excess flood insurance provided by Lloyds was triggered as soon as our client, Travelers admitted liability for its $1,000,000 flood sublimit.

The City's claim for property insurance coverage for damage to the City's wastewater treatment lagoon liner was excluded based on the standard "faulty workmanship" exclusion in our clients policy.

No property insurance coverage was afforded based on the unambiguous terms of the "Disappearance-inventory loss" exclusion.

The court of appeals agreed with our position and reversed the trial judge who had ruled that the exclusions only applied to acts of the defendants.

No property insurance coverage was afforded based on the unambiguous terms of the "Disappearance-inventory loss" exclusion.

The suit limitation clause in our client's first-party property insurance contract barred the policyholder's claim.

The underlying claim could not reach Pennsylvania Lumbermens excess level of coverage by application of the "horizontal exhaustion" rule.

The contractor's claim based on its alleged failure to follow the construction plans did not constitute an "occurrence."

CERCLA does not preempt state corporate capacity statutes.