Insurance

For more than 20 years, the Firm has advised insurers in insurance coverage disputes and represented them before state and federal courts, ADR panels, and state regulatory agencies.  In connection with general liability policies, the Firm's practice frequently involves coverage for asbestos-related injury, construction defects, environmental contamination, and products liability.  The Firm's practice also includes disputes regarding first-party commercial policies, professional liability policies, directors and officers coverage, and personal lines policies. 

Three attorneys comprise the Firm's insurance coverage practice group.  Lee H. Ogburn, who chairs the practice group, has acted as lead counsel in national insurance coverage litigation involving claims in excess of $100 million.  Susan M. Hogan, who was managing principal of an insurance coverage firm in San Francisco before joining Kramon & Graham, P.A. in 2004, currently focuses her practice on disputes involving coverage for construction defects.  Steven M. Klepper, who serves on the editorial board of The CGL Reporter, assists other members of the group in commercial lines matters and serves as lead attorney in personal lines matters. 

Other attorneys at the Firm devote a portion of their practice to insurance coverage matters.  Geoffrey H. Genth is a former editor of The CGL Reporter, and regularly litigates coverage under attorney malpractice policies.  Kevin F. Arthur has served as lead counsel in suits involving coverage for multimillion dollar claims for defective construction and wrongful death. 

The Firm's insurance coverage practice is national.  Attorneys in the insurance coverage practice group have represented insurers in coverage litigation across the country.  They frequently speak at conferences and author articles on topics including construction defects, allocation, aggregate limits of coverage for asbestos-related injury, mold-related bodily injury, and choice of law.  Three published Maryland appellate decisions have cited with approval to Mr. Ogburn's article, The Progression of Trigger Litigation in Maryland – Determining the Appropriate Trigger of Coverage, Its Limitations, and Ramifications, 53 Md. L.Rev. 220 (1994).

Significant decisions obtained by the Firm include the following:

In re Wallace & Gale Co., 385 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 2004)

• Under Maryland law, insurer was responsible only for the portion of asbestos-related bodily injury occurring during its policy period.
• Bodily injury that occurred after completion of asbestos installer's operations was subject to aggregate limits of liability.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Miller Building Corp., 142 Fed. Appx. 147 (4th Cir. 2005)

• Under Virginia law, claims against contractor for subcontractor's defective workmanship did not constitute "occurrence" under CGL policy.

Mitchell, Best & Visnic, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., 35 Fed. Appx. 75 (4th Cir. 2002)

• Under Maryland law, claims against builder for loss of enjoyment of property did not allege "property damage" under CGL policy.

APAC-Atlantic, Inc. v. Protection Services, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 2d 792 (N.D. W. Va. 2005)

• Law of Pennsylvania, not West Virginia, governed "additional insured" coverage under policy delivered in Pennsylvania.
• Insurer had no duty to defend contractor under "blanket" additional insured endorsement where policyholder not named in complaint.

Athridge v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2007 WL 438784 (D.D.C. 2007)

• From February 12 through 21, 2007, Geoffrey Genth and Steven Klepper represented an insurer before a District of Columbia jury in a coverage dispute. The plaintiff, who sustained brain damage and other injuries when an unlicensed driver struck him, had obtained an unsatisfied $5.5 million judgment against the driver. The insurer had issued an insurance policy to the driver's father. But for a policy exclusion barring coverage for a person using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that he is entitled to do so, the driver would have been covered under the policy.
• The jury ruled in favor of the insurer on February 21, 2007, finding that the unlicensed driver was operating the vehicle without a reasonable belief that he was entitled to do so. The court designated for publication its rulings on the motions in limine.