Elizabeth M. Shaffer

We represented a national insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract and bad faith relating denial of a claim for fire loss. The Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to our client on the grounds that the insured made intentional misrepresentations relating to his financial condition and the loss of multiple items in the fire in the course of the insurer’s investigation. The district court concluded that the insured’s “misrepresentations were numerous and ever changing and material to [the insurer’s] investigation of this intentional fire.”

We serve as national coordinating counsel for Debt Purchaser in the appropriate handling of consumer debt collection and the defense of FDCPA and related litigation, including class action litigation. We manage local counsel and coordinate all aspects of litigation.

We represented a debt purchaser against claims of violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The consumer argued that the debt purchaser violated the FCRA by failing to reasonably investigate the notices of dispute that it received from credit reporting agencies. The district court granted summary judgment to the debt purchaser and held that “no reasonable factfinder could determine that Defendant's investigation was unreasonable. Further, no reasonable factfinder could determine that Defendant furnished the CRAs with inaccurate information given the absence of evidence showing that Plaintiff was not liable on the Account.” The consumer further argued that the debt purchaser violated the FDCPA by “reporting to the CRAs that Plaintiff owed a debt that she did not and that the underlying debt was more recent than it was in connection with an attempt to collect a consumer debt under a credit card." The district court granted summary judgment to the debt purchaser and held that the allegation that the debt sought to be collected is not owed, standing alone, cannot form a basis for a “false and misleading practices” claim under the FDCPA. Moreover, Plaintiff's own expert admitted that the debt purchaser accurately reported the "date opened" and the "FCRA compliance/date of first delinquency" at all times. The district court also awarded reasonable attorney’s fees to the debt purchaser on the FDCPA claim and held that that the debt purchaser established that the FDCPA claim was “brought in bad faith and for purposes of harassment.”

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class in a number of cases consolidated pursuant to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel rules. They contended that asbestos personal injury claims had been unfairly investigated and settled by numerous insurers in violation of that state's Unfair Trade Practices Act.  In discovery defendants presented evidence that many of the claims were of questionable validity, and defendants' experts on the class certification issue testified that individual facts surrounding those issues predominated over facts pertinent to the alleged class. Plaintiffs agreed to settle shortly before the class certification hearing.

Represented a national insurance company against claims of bad faith, breach of contract and negligence. Plaintiff’s home suffered wind damage and water loss in October 2007, but the plaintiff failed to file suit against her insurer until March 2009. The Southern District of Ohio held that the plaintiff’s claims for coverage and negligence were barred by the policy’s one-year suit limitations provision, and the insurer had not waived the limitations period. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for our client.

Represented a national insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith. Plaintiff was the owner of apartment complex, which suffered a roof collapse, causing exterior and interior damage, as well as multiple uninhabitable living units. Both plaintiff and defendant hired roof inspectors to determine cause of collapse, although interpretations of reports were disputed by both sides. Our client eventually paid out for a new roof and repair of interior damages; however, plaintiff alleged that our client did not fully pay out for loss of income as dictated on policy. The Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to our client on grounds that our client was reasonably justified in withholding payment throughout the course of its investigation.

Obtained multi-million dollar settlement for Prime Contractor in large, complex action against Owner and Project Engineer for delay, interference, breach of contract, and related claims. The case involved significant electronic and paper discovery, extensive deposition practice, extensive motion practice, multiple experts, complex case management methods, and varied methods of alternative dispute resolution.