Practice/Industry Group Overview
Edwards Wildman's Insurance and Reinsurance Complex Commercial Litigation team regularly represents insurance and reinsurance clients with respect to their most pressing commercial, corporate and regulatory disputes. Combining in-depth industry knowledge with world class litigation experience, our Insurance and Reinsurance Complex Commercial Litigation team is able to achieve creative and superior results for our insurance clients' most complex problems. Our team appears regularly before courts, tribunals and regulators around the world.
In addition to coverage related matters, our team has advised and defended insurance industry clients on commercial matters ranging from antitrust to unfair trade practices, including consumer fraud, corporate governance, securities, trade secret, ERISA, employment, executive compensation, intellectual property, contract and distribution related matters. We also regularly represent clients in internal investigations and before insurance regulators, state attorneys general, and other governmental regulators, including the SEC.
Our lawyers have successfully helped our clients navigate through the most critical issues faced by the insurance industry over the past 15 years, including vanishing premium, market timing, bid rigging/contingent commissions, revenue sharing STOLI, after market auto parts and suitability issues, institutional bad faith and class action claims against insurers based on company-wide practices, as well as the defense of claims of discriminatory underwriting, including race and age based discriminatory practices. Because of our industry focused experience, we are able to work with clients to help identify emerging issues with the aim of avoiding litigation. Should the need arise, however, we are well poised to defend our insurance clients whenever and wherever necessary.
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:
Supreme Court Upholds ERISA Plan's Limitations Period
Jonathan R. Shank,Gina D. Wodarski, December 20, 2013
On December 16, 2013, the United States Supreme Court upheld a limitations period in a long-term disability plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). In Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., the Court resolved a split among the...
Who Owns a Bribe?
James Maton, November 15, 2013
A public official receives a bribe to award a contract. Does the bribe “belong” to the official or to the state that he or she represents? The answer to the question can matter a great deal to the success of a claim. But the issue is controversial and the answer unclear in English law....
Fourth Circuit Finds Copyright Transfers with Electronic Signatures to be Valid
Seth A. Davidson,Ari Z. Moskowitz, October 23, 2013
In a unanimous three-judge opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the “writing” and “signature” requirements for assigning a copyright can be met by clicking a button in a web browser. This gives greater certainty to enforceability of...
Recent Upsurge of Massachusetts Class Actions on Merchant Zip Code Collection
Brian J. Green,Sander A. Rikleen,Mark E. Schreiber, October 03, 2013
There has been a flurry of class actions filed in the last six months against retailers in Massachusetts alleging improper collection of ZIP codes from consumers during credit card purchases. This upsurge follows the March 2013 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Tyler v....
Federal Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Against Aereo Competitor FilmOn
Seth A. Davidson,Arthur H. Harding, September 14, 2013
On September 5, 2013, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order blocking FilmOn from offering its antenna/DVR service. FilmOn (previously known as “BarryDriller.com” and “Aereokiller”) is essentially a knock-off...
Alan L. Friel,H. Straat Tenney, September 11, 2013
Claims Control Clauses: No Self-Control?
Mark Everiss,William Haig,Sam Tacey, August 13, 2013
The High Court rules on the effect of a claims control clause where cedants and some reinsurers unilaterally paid out their share of a claim.