Insurance Law


The attorneys in our sophisticated insurance law practice have earned national recognition for their specialized knowledge and skill counseling clients, providing coverage opinions, advising insurers on premium disputes, and litigating disputed claims. This extensive experience includes analyzing coverage and representing insurers in coverage disputes of all sizes and scope, including complex declaratory judgment actions, in federal courts in Michigan and across the country and in more than 22 state courts.

Our insurance attorneys provide seasoned counsel on a wide variety of property and casualty, professional liability, automobile, and first party property claims, including:

  • Environmental, breast implant, asbestos, stucco and toxic tort claims
  • Bad faith
  • Reformation and rescission of insurance policies
  • Personal injury and advertising injury claims, including claims for trademark and copyright infringement
  • Construction defects
  • Professional liability, including attorneys, physicians, and directors and officers
  • First party property claims, including Examinations Under Oath
  • Automobile and PIP claims


Representative Matters

Ann Arbor Public Schools v. Diamond State Ins. Co., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1034 ( E.D. Mich. 2006), aff'd, 236 Fed. Appx. 163 (6th Cir. 2007) - Obtained summary judgement in the Federal District Court, which was affirmed after argument before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that the underlying employment discrimination claims were not covered under the claims made policy at issue based upon an exclusion for claims arising out of facts or circumstances known to the insured at inception that could reasonably be expected to result in a claim.

Dow Corning Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., Inc., (Circuit Court, Wayne County, Michigan) – Litigated breast implant coverage action during a multi-week jury trial, obtaining the only favorable verdict for an insurer on a $5.75 million stub policy issue.

Highlands Ins. Co. v. Aerovox, Inc., 424 Mass. 226, 676 N.E.2d 801 (Mass. 1997) – Obtained summary judgment in favor of plaintiff insurance company on the ground that the sudden and accidental exception to the pollution exclusion did not apply.