- Insurance Coverage
- Insurance Litigation
- Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Litigation
- Suspected Fraudulent Claim Investigation and Advice
- Products Liability
- Commercial Litigation
- General Civil Litigation
|Contact Info||Telephone: Toll Free: 800-352-1103|
|University ||Emory University, B.A., 1982|
|Law School||Emory University School of Law, J.D., 1985|
|Born||Rockledge, Florida, March 28, 1961|
Wayne Taylor is an AV rated trial lawyer who joined the firm as a partner in 1995. For the past 29 years, Mr. Taylor has maintained a national practice representing insurers primarily in complex insurance coverage and bad faith matters, including commercial property and business interruption, bad faith and extra contractual litigation, excess and surplus lines coverage, builder's risk, boiler and machinery, suspected arson and fraudulent claims, Chinese drywall, domestic intrastate and interstate motor truck carrier liability, warehouseman's legal liability, and jewelers block. He has extensive experience in third-party liability coverage analysis and litigation, including general liability, environmental and complex torts, directors and officers, professional liability (errors and omissions), advertising injury and intellectual property, construction defects, and employment practices liability. Mr. Taylor has handled substantial property loss claims throughout the United States, including a number of claims related to major catastrophes such as September 11, 2001, the 2004 hurricanes in Florida, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ike, the 2010 Oklahoma tornadoes, and the 2011 Alabama tornadoes.
Mr. Taylor has handled claims related to real property of virtually every scale, ranging from homeowner's claims to claims on substantial shopping malls, hotels, manufacturing facilities, and major sports venues around the country. Mr. Taylor also provides representation to insurers in subrogation matters. Mr. Taylor's clients retain him on a regional and national basis, trusting his coverage counsel in major claims. Recent engagements include a claim of more than $16 million in New York and two hurricane related claims totaling more than $100 million in Florida. Mr. Taylor is a trained and certified mediator, specializing in insurance coverage disputes, and an umpire certified by The Windstorm Insurance Network.
Mr. Taylor is a Fellow of the American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel. He was recognized as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in Insurance Coverage by SuperLawyers Magazine in 2014. Mr. Taylor is the co-author of "Unique Coverage Issues in Flood Losses," published in the winter 2013 issue of the "Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal," 48 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 619 (2013). Mr. Taylor is the co-author of "Defective and Corrosive Drywall: Analyzing First-Party Coverage Issues," published in the Fall 2010 issue of the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 46 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 63 (2011). In addition, Mr. Taylor co-authored "Damage Occurring from Theft of Copper: Is the Damage Covered as Vandalism or Excluded as Theft?," one of the featured articles published in the September 2011 online edition of Claims Advisor. Mr. Taylor lectures frequently to lawyers and insurance industry professionals throughout the country on a wide range of topics involving insurance coverage, bad faith and the investigation of suspected arson and fraudulent insurance claims. He also has experience in the management of the firm, having served on its Management Committee and chaired the Firm Development Group, the firm's marketing committee. Mr. Taylor was born in Rockledge, Florida, and has lived in Atlanta since graduating from Emory University.
Fellow, American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel; Super Lawyers, 2014; Martindale-Hubbell Client Distinction Award, 2013 - Present; Emory Merit Scholarships 1982-1985; Listed: ALM Georgia's Top Rated Lawyers, 2012 - Present; ALM Top Rated Lawyers in Insurance Law and Coverage, 2012 - Present; ALM Top Rated Lawyers in Litigation, 2014; Honorable Mention, Attorneys to Watch in 2014, Attorney at Law Magazine; WIND Fellow, Windstorm Insurance Network; Worldwide Registry of Who's Who, 2011; Strathmore's Who's Who, 2011; Cambridge Who's Who Among Executives, Professionals and Entrepreneurs, 2011; Who's Who in the South and Southwest, 1999; Who's Who in American Law, 1998; Trained and Certified Mediator, Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution; Certified Umpire, Windstorm Insurance Network; AVVO Superb 10.0 Attorney Rating.
|Reported Cases||Catlin Specialty Insurance Co. v. Scott McPherson, et al., 2013 Lexis 106993 (D.S.C. July 31, 2013). Summary judgment granted to liability insurer. Case involved a claim for construction defects to a house built by the insured's owners when they were affiliated with a different construction company. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted Catlin's motion for summary judgment, holding that the liability insurance policy provided coverage to the insured's owners as insureds only for work performed on behalf of the named insured; Catlin Specialty Insurance Co. v. Selebra Philou, et al., (S.D. Ala. February 20, 2013). Summary Judgment granted to liability insurer. Case involved a claim against a bar for a shooting death of one of its customers. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted Catlin's motion for summary judgment, finding that the liability policy's weapons and total liquor liability exclusions precluded coverage for the claim; RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, 841 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (N.D. Ga. 2011), aff'd, 446 Fed. Appx. 211 (11th Cir. 2011), rehearing denied. Dismissal of action granted to liability insurer. Case involved allegations that claimant suffered personal injuries from exposure to benzene contained in RaceTrac's gasoline product during their employment at a RaceWay service station. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted ACE's motion to dismiss because the liability policies' pollution exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage for the claims asserted against RaceTrac that alleged personal injury from exposure to benzene vapors in gasoline. The court also ruled that enforcement of the pollution exclusion did not violate Georgia's public policy as illusory because the ACE liability policies provide RaceTrac with coverage for risks associated with the operation of convenience stores and the many products and services that are naturally a part of that style of operation. The district court's ruling was affirmed on appeal; Aydin and Company v. Jewelers Mutual Insurance Company, 426 Fed. Appx. 760 (11th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment granted to jewelers block insurer affirmed. Case involved allegations that Jewelers Mutual wrongfully withheld payment under a jewelers block insurance policy for the loss of a jewelry salesman's merchandise that had been placed in an airplane's cargo hold during a flight. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling granting Jewelers Mutual's motion for summary judgment because the policy provides coverage for stock away from the insured's premises only when the insured's stock is in the custody of the insured, and the merchandise was not in the insured's custody when it was placed in the airplane's cargo hold; ALTA Refrigeration, Inc. v. Americold Logistics, 301 Ga. App. 738, 688 S.E. 2d 658 (2009). Obtained reversal of summary judgment ruling against insured. Case involved allegations of negligence against the insured under the borrowed servant doctrine for an explosion at a refrigeration plant where the insured was installing a new compressor. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court's ruling that one of the employees of the refrigeration plant involved in causing the explosion was the borrowed servant of the insured and granted summary judgment in favor of the insured, finding that the borrowed servant doctrine did not apply; Northwest Packing Co. v. ACE American Insurance Company, 236 Fed. Appx. 574 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment granted to insurer affirmed. Case involved a claim for ACE's failure to pay for damages caused by rat infestation under a warehouseman's legal liability insurance policy. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the federal district court's ruling in which summary judgment was granted to ACE because there was no coverage under the policy's exclusion for damages caused by vermin; Drew Hill v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (M.D. Ga. 1999). Summary judgment granted to property insurer. Case involved a claim against Safeco for failing to pay the insured's loss to his building and Indian arrowhead collection under a homeowner's insurance policy and bad faith failure to pay. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted Safeco's motion for summary judgment ruling there was no obligation to pay under the policy because the insured failed to comply with three conditions precedent to recovery under the policy; CNA International Reinsurance Company v. CPB Enterprises, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 831 (S.D. Ala. 1997). Summary judgment granted to liability insurer. Case involved a claim for coverage under a liability insurance policy due to allegations of sexual harassment asserted against the insured in Alabama. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted CNA's motion for summary judgment, finding that the policy's exclusion for sexual and/or physical abuse precluded coverage for the claims; Williams v. Fallaize Insurance Agency, et al., 220 Ga. App. 411, 469 S.E. 2d 752 (1996). Summary judgment granted to jewelers block insurer affirmed. Case involved allegations that a jewelers block insurer wrongfully refused payment of a claim for the theft of jewelry from a vehicle under a jewelers block insurance policy issued by Lloyd's of London. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court's ruling granting summary judgment to Lloyd's of London because the policy's unattended vehicle exclusion precluded coverage for the loss; Timothy A. McCord v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, 38 F. 3d 573 (11th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment granted to liability insurer affirmed. Case involved a claim for coverage under a liability insurance policy issued by Hartford for the cost to clean up hazardous waste on the insured's property. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the ruling of the federal district court that coverage for the claim was precluded under the policy's pollution exclusion; Virginia Properties, Inc. v. The Home Indemnity Company, et al., 74 F. 3d 1131 (11th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment granted to liability insurers affirmed. Case involved a claim by Virginia Properties for coverage under various liability insurance policies for the cost to clean up chemical contamination at a wood treatment facility in Virginia. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling granting the insurers' motion for summary judgment, finding that coverage for the clean up costs was precluded under the liability policies' pollution exclusions; Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 68 F. 3d 409 (11th Cir. 1995). Dismissal of case for lack of jurisdiction because no justiciable controversy existed. Case involved claims by Atlanta Gas Light for coverage under numerous liability insurance policies for the cost to clean up contamination at various manufactured gas plants in Georgia and Florida. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Atlanta Gas Light's lawsuit, finding the action was filed based on Atlanta Gas Light's speculation that its insurers would decline coverage based on other insurance companies' dealings with their insureds and thus did not present a concrete case or controversy; Guaranty Service Corporation v. American Employers Insurance Company, 893 F. 2d 725 (5th Cir. 1990). Jury verdict in favor of property insurer affirmed. Case involved allegations that American Employers wrongfully withheld coverage under an insurance policy for damages to an apartment complex in Mississippi owned by the insureds as a result of Hurricane Elena. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury's verdict following a three week trial that the insureds misrepresented material facts during the submission of their claim, voiding coverage under the policy; Aetna Casualty and Surety Insurance Company v. Honey Bear Brand, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 849 (W.D.N.C. 1989). Summary judgment granted to property insurer. Case involved a claim by the Farmers Home Administration, as the lien holder on apple processing equipment damaged by fire, under an insurance policy issued by Aetna. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of Aetna, finding the policy did not provide coverage for the damaged processing equipment; Gilbane Building Company v. The Altman Company, 2005 Ohio 984 (Ohio App. 2005). Summary judgment granted to builder's risk insurer affirmed. Case involved allegations that ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company wrongfully refused coverage under a contractor's builder's risk insurance policy for damages from corrosion to equipment and piping which occurred when the contractor improperly applied muriatic acid to concrete flooring. The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the trial court's ruling granting ACE's motion for summary judgment because the builder's risk policy's exclusions for "rust and corrosion" and "faulty workmanship" unambiguously precluded coverage for the claimed damages under the policy; Kendrick Pecan Co., Inc. v. American States Insurance Co., case no. 4:06-cv-37 (M.D. Ga. June 5, 2007). Partial summary judgment granted to property insurer. Case involved allegations that the insurer wrongfully refused payment of the difference between the actual cash value of wind-related damages to the insured's property paid by the insurer and the estimated replacement cost of the repairs, which the insured had not incurred. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the insured was not entitled to payment of the replacement cost of the damages until it showed that it incurred more than the actual cash value of the damages when making repairs.|
View Ratings & Reviews
|Profile Visibility |
|#36 in weekly profile views out of 19,272 lawyers in Atlanta, Georgia|
|#2,539 in weekly profile views out of 1,530,397 total lawyers Overall|