Practice/Industry Group Overview
For more than three decades, Wilson Elser’s Fidelity & Surety attorneys have provided experienced representation on the complex and sensitive issues that define this area of law. From the longer-term relationships governed by fidelity bonds to the short-term contractual projects under surety arrangements, we have litigated virtually every type of claim likely to be encountered by fidelity and surety bond issuers.
From the longer-term relationships governed by fidelity bonds to the short-term contractual projects under surety arrangements, we have litigated virtually every type of claim likely to be encountered by fidelity and surety bond issuers.
Our attorneys are able to respond swiftly and efficiently to our clients' needs through a national platform and multidisciplinary approach that reaches across practice areas and jurisdictions. We offer our services almost anywhere in the United States, and we are able to draw on the deep collective experience of practice teams firmwide, including those that handle bankruptcy, banking law, ERISA and related legal matters.
Recognizing that our clients seek cost-effective solutions to complex and often protracted cases, we emphasize early assessment, informal negotiations and alternative dispute resolution methods. When early resolutions are not possible, we are prepared to resolve cases in court. Our experienced trial attorneys have handled countless cases for both domestic and international insurers.
Wilson Elser attorneys are extensively published in industry-leading journals and regularly address regional and national forums on critical fidelity and surety issues. We closely monitor the latest techniques involving electronic discovery, evidence and computer technology, and routinely handle complicated multi-party matters.
Wilson Elser's attorneys have extensive experience investigating and litigating fidelity bond claims, including those arising from:
- Employee dishonesty
- Ponzi schemes
- Mortgage fraud schemes
- Loss of securities and trading losses
- Cyber crimes
In addition to counseling insurers on coverage, our attorneys assist fidelity underwriters in drafting policies and endorsements. Their successful representation of Financial Institution Bond and Commercial Crime insurers in especially challenging cases has resulted in groundbreaking and industry-changing decisions.
With extensive experience in surety bonds, Wilson Elser attorneys are familiar with all legal aspects of claims handling and litigation and strive to both limit losses and enhance recoveries. We are routinely involved with claims arising in connection with the following types of bonds:
Wilson Elser attorneys pursue bond indemnitors for recovery of losses, attorneys' fees and other expenses. We are also adept at recognizing and pursing other avenues of recovery based on the surety’s subrogation rights as well as providing underwriting support to our surety clients. While committed to early analysis and resolution of claims and lawsuits, we are experienced in all matters of surety litigation and trial practice, including:
- Complex claim handling
- Motion practice; investigation and discovery
- Subrogation and recovery
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:
Duty to Settle Absent a Demand? California Court Says No
Patrick M. Kelly,D. Victoria LaBrie,James A. Stankowski, November 19, 2013
The California Court of Appeal in Reid v. Mercury Insurance Company [(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 262 (rehearing denied November 6, 2013)] found no California authority “standing for the proposition that there is a duty to settle when there is a claim that is vastly in excess of the policy limits...
Court Confirms the Limited Duty of an Insurance Broker to Procure Only Coverage Requested by the Insured
John R. Clifford,Edward P. Garson,Ian A. Stewart, November 11, 2013
Recently, in San Diego Assemblers v. Work Comp for Less Insurance Services, Inc. (October 4, 2013, CA Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District), the court upheld the granting of summary judgment on behalf of a broker on the grounds that it breached no legal duty to its client. The court rejected...