Meg Reid focuses her practice on litigation with a concentration in insurance coverage. Her practice includes advising and representing insurers with regard property and liability coverage disputes involving both commercial and personal lines policies. Her experience includes the successful handling of complex contractual, bad faith and unfair insurance practices claims. She also has substantial experience directly defending the interests of individuals and businesses in matters pertaining to personal injury, premises liability and fire loss. Meg also has experience in the representation of both corporate and individual clients with regard to business and commercial disputes including contract, fraud, and other tort related matters.
Meg is involved in the Firm's pro bono efforts. She is accredited by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to assist with the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for veteran's benefits and provides a variety of legal services for the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center. Prior to entering law school, Meg was a Licensed Clinical Social Worker. She worked for several years providing mental health and case management services to the mentally ill and developmentally disabled in both private and public psychiatric facilities.
Meg joined Halloran & Sage as a Summer Associate in 2008.
Blast Faxes: Is There Liability Coverage For Claims Arising From Unwanted and Unsolicited Faxes?
Insurance Law Update, 04/25/2014
News & Events
Four H & S Attorneys Selected for 2015 CT Law Tribune New Leaders in the Law Honor
|Reported Cases||Representative Matters: Kim v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2015 WL 6675532 (D.Conn. Oct. 30, 2015) (Bryant, J.); This case arises out of a claim for insurance proceeds allegedly due as a result of defective concrete used in the foundation of the plaintiffs' residence. In addition to breach of contract, the plaintiffs further alleged that the insurer breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as violated the unfair insurance practices and unfair trade practices acts. The Court dismissed both extracontractual counts, upon a finding that the policy provisions relied upon by the insurer in its denial of the claim were at least facially valid.; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Simonelli, et al.; Successfully obtained judgment on the pleadings on behalf of the insurer upon a finding by the Court (Hall, J.) that the underlying defendant was not an insured and therefore the insurer had no duty to defend or duty to indemnify him with respect to an underlying motor vehicle accident.; Malick v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 5708557 (D.Conn. Sept. 29, 2015); In an action alleging improper taking possession of the plaintiffs' real and personal property, successfully obtained dismissal on behalf of the defendant of various counts including negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and state and federal constitutional claims.; Malick v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2015 WL 5797008 (D.Conn. Sept. 30, 2015) (Bryant, J.); Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of the defendant on various counts arising out of the alleged improper taking possession of the plaintiffs' real and personal property and damage sustained thereto.; Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hobbs, 3:13-CV-00031-WWE, 2014 WL 6474335 (D.Conn. Nov. 19, 2014); Obtained summary judgment on behalf of insurer in a declaratory judgment action based upon a finding that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify against claims.; Perez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., DBD-CV13-6012334-S, 2014 WL 4358442 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 6, 2014); In an insurance coverage action arising out of alleged property damage, bad faith, unfair trade practices, unfair insurance practices, and negligence infliction of emotional distress claims that were asserted against insurer were successfully stricken for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.; H & S Obtains Summary Judgment in Commercial General Liability Matter, Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Leyman Watson, et al.; In the matter of Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Leyman Watson, et al., Halloran & Sage successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of the firm's client, Nautilus Insurance Company ( Nautilus ) in a declaratory judgment action involving a commercial general liability policy ( the Policy ) issued to its insureds, Luongo Construction & Development LLC ( Luongo Construction ).; By way of background, Nautilus insured the defendant, Luongo Construction, under a commercial general liability policy ( the Policy ). Luongo Construction's managing member, Michael Luongo ( Luongo ), was also an insured under the Policy. Leyman Watson ( Watson ) commenced an action against Nautilus's insured, Luongo Construction, amongst others, for personal injuries sustained as a result of a fall down a set of stairs that were allegedly constructed and/or repaired by Luongo Construction. The owners of the premises where the stairs were located, Tracy Rappa ( Rappa ) and Joanne Sardo ( Sardo ), commenced a third party complaint against Luongo Construction and Luongo asserting a breach of contract and common law indemnification stemming from the construction or repairs to the outside deck or stairs on which Watson sustained personal injury.; Nautilus commenced a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut seeking a declaration that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Luongo Construction as to the third party claims being made by Sardo, Rappa and Watson. Nautilus argued that Rappa and Sardo's third party complaint being asserted against its insured did not allege property damage or bodily injury caused by an occurrence as the term was defined by the Policy. Secondly, Nautilus also sought a declaration that the policy provided coverage for Luongo Construction, not Wallingford Construction Company LLC (a predecessor company started by Luongo) and, therefore, any conduct by Michael Luongo in regard to any business transactions with Sardo and Rappa was only with respect to the business dealings with Wallingford Construction LLC, not Luongo Construction. Nautilus also sought a declaration that any liability claims were excluded by the professional services construction management exclusion. Finally, Nautilus sought a declaration that the liability claims were excluded under an endorsement which excluded bodily injury or property damage arising out of your work that commenced prior to the inception date of the policy.; Nautilus moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claims being made by Sardo and Rappa, for breach of contract and common law indemnification, did not constitute an occurrence under the Policy, that the stairs were not built by the named insured (because Luongo was not acting in furtherance of the business of Luongo Construction), and that the subject stairs were built prior to the inception of the policy. During discovery Nautilus established that the stairs were not built by Luongo Construction nor Luongo's former company, Wallingford Construction. The Court (Underhill, J.) sided with Nautilus and granted the summary judgment in favor of Nautilus Ins. Co. on the basis that there is no issue of material fact that the stairs were built prior to the inception of the policy. Therefore, in granting summary judgment, the court ruled that Nautilus did not have a duty to defend and/or indemnify Michael Luongo and/or Luongo Construction & Development LLC in the underlying lawsuit brought by Leyman Watson. Nautilus Ins. Co. was represented by Steven Ryan and Meg Reid.|