Representation of insurance company in coverage dispute leads to successful summary judgment for client
Our client, a national insurance company, was the issuer of a Surplus Lines Policy for a bar. After a physical altercation between some bar patrons and employees, our client denied coverage based on exclusions in the insurance policy. The plaintiff sued our client asserting claims of reasonable expectation of coverage, on the grounds the policy, as written, did not provide meaningful coverage and that the policy at issue was unconscionable and/or the exclusions at issue were ambiguous and inconspicuous. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to assert a claim that our client was not authorized to issue the policy at issue and violated West Virginia law by doing so. After years of discovery and multiple rounds of summary judgment briefings, the trial court granted summary judgment in our favor, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against us.