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.
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 was a Summer Associate with Halloran & Sage in 2008. In law school, Meg was a staff writer for the Sports and Entertainment Law Journal. Her casenote Harry Potter and the Copy Right Act: Have the Courts Finally Waived A Magic Wand by Defining Fair Use for Secondary Authors? was published by the Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal.
Blast Faxes: Is There Liability Coverage For Claims Arising From Unwanted and Unsolicited Faxes?
Insurance Law Update, 04/25/2014
H & S 'Walks Like MADD' In Support of a Good Cause
|Reported Cases||Representative Matter: Meg Reid Obtains Summary Judgment on Behalf of Insurer; 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. Meg Reid Successfully Strikes Claims Asserted Against Insurer; 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.|