Experience
Insurance Premium Tax Class Action Litigation
We defended a national insurance company in a putative class action case regarding the application of an insurance premium tax in the state of Kentucky. Kentucky statutes authorize Kentucky cities and counties to impose and collect a tax on insurance premiums. The statute permits insurance companies to collect the tax and keep a portion of the amount they have collected upon remittance of the appropriate amount to the taxing body. The proposed class consisted of all persons or entities in the state who paid a surcharge on their insurance premiums pursuant to a tax imposed by a local government. The proposed class definition contained no time limit as to the claims asserted.
The plaintiffs argued that the insurance premium tax should have been paid by the insurance companies, and not the policyholders. They also alleged that the tax had been miscalculated by the insurance company in some jurisdictions. The plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief that the insurance companies be prohibited from collecting the tax from the policyholders. Alternatively, if it was determined that the companies were permitted to collect the tax from policyholders, the plaintiffs sought an accounting to determine if the tax had been properly calculated for each policyholder, with the cost of the accounting to be paid by the insurance companies.
We removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied. We also filed a motion to dismiss asserting that under the applicable state statutes the insurance premium tax was properly charged to the policyholders. We also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the appropriate state agency prior to filing suit, as required by state statute. The motion to dismiss was granted.
The plaintiffs argued that the insurance premium tax should have been paid by the insurance companies, and not the policyholders. They also alleged that the tax had been miscalculated by the insurance company in some jurisdictions. The plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief that the insurance companies be prohibited from collecting the tax from the policyholders. Alternatively, if it was determined that the companies were permitted to collect the tax from policyholders, the plaintiffs sought an accounting to determine if the tax had been properly calculated for each policyholder, with the cost of the accounting to be paid by the insurance companies.
We removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied. We also filed a motion to dismiss asserting that under the applicable state statutes the insurance premium tax was properly charged to the policyholders. We also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the appropriate state agency prior to filing suit, as required by state statute. The motion to dismiss was granted.
Insured v. National Insurance Company
Represented a national insurance company in coverage and bad faith matter. Plaintiff had purchased comprehensive coverage but not collision coverage. Plaintiff was involved in a car accident, alleging that a bird struck his vehicle, which caused him to collide with a culvert. The Campbell Circuit Court (Kentucky) held that our client was entitled to summary judgment on the coverage claim because there was no “direct” damage to his vehicle caused by the bird strike. The court further held that our client was entitled to summary judgment on the bad faith claim because there was no coverage under the terms of the policy.
Insured v. National Insurance Company
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.
Insured v. National Insurance Company
Represented a national insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith. The plaintiff, an owner of a barbershop, purchased two identical business insurance policies prior to a robbery, which plaintiff claimed resulted in damage to property, loss of income and loss of inventory. The Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to our client on all claims, holding that the plaintiff failed to cooperate during the insurer’s investigation of his loss.
Insured v. National Insurance Company
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.
Policyholder-Attorney v. Legal Malpractice Insurer, U.S. District Court
I served as lead, local trial counsel for insurer in successfully obtaining summary judgment in 2011 in a claim for coverage and bad faith involving underlying allegations of legal malpractice. In the only oral hearing in the case, I presented our position to the federal judge in a related-discovery motion that ultimately formed the basis for the summary judgment.
President of Insurance Trade Association
Ongoing service as President of West Virginia Insurance Federation since 2004. Conduct a number of administrative duties, including day-to-day operations, reviewing and monitoring applicable legislation, lobbying on behalf of or in opposition to legislation, drafting and introducing legislation, drafting amendments and providing testimony regarding legislation. Duties also include distributing regular reports on legislation, meeting regularly with company representatives and lobbyists, monitoring interim committees, scheduling committee and board meetings, working with the Insurance Commissioner’s Office and other regulatory agencies, and assisting in distribution of materials, such as media releases and editorials.
Regional Insurance Company v. Local Manufacturer
I obtained favorable rulings from the trial and appellate courts on the insurer's duty to defend certain underlying intellectual property claims. The underlying claims involved trade dress infringement, patent infringement, and unfair competition. The coverage issue arose because one of our client's insurance policies provided coverage for certain trade dress claims, among other types of advertising injury. I obtained summary judgment on the duty to defend, served as co-counsel in conducting a trial on damages issues, and then was the lead author of the brief that prevailed in the First District Court of Appeals.
Steadfast Insurance Company v. Eon Lab (KY)
Dinsmore & Shohl represented the Plaintiff, a British based plc, in insurance coverage litigation relating to the MDL Phen-Fen litigation. The case was settled.
- Page 2 of 2