In 2025, our firm defended a company in a substantial commercial litigation after its insurer had refused to provide a defense or pay for any possible liability. The insurer justified its refusal to defend or indemnify by citing obscure, confusing provisions in its insurance contract. We successfully argued that those exceptions rendered the insurer’s duty to insure an illusory promise. Rather than litigate the matter, the insurer agreed to provide a full defense and to pay full indemnification. Thereafter, the insurer paid for our client’s defense, reimbursed our client for the fees it had previously paid us, hired its own counsel to defend our client, and paid us to continue to act as our client’s independent counsel (Cumis counsel).
In the underlying case against our client, we took the lead role in developing and stating our client’s strong defenses, then negotiated a confidential settlement agreement with the other parties. Under this agreement, our client’s insurer paid a small part of a much larger settlement, which was mostly paid by the other defendants. In all, our client paid only its insurance deductible, and its insurer paid a small part of a large settlement sum. This matter was an unqualified success for our client. Case Name: Redacted (per the settlement agreement).
