Richardson Law Group directly represents some of the nation's largest insurance carriers in matters involving coverage disputes and coverage investigation. Our firm assists carriers in the pre-litigation stage with coverage disputes and policy interpretations. Our attorneys attend national seminars and maintain subscriptions with the industry's leading publications so we can advise our carriers of the latest trends. If litigation becomes necessary, Richardson Law Group projects the interests of our insurance carriers throughout the litigation process. Whether guiding its carriers through a complex coverage determination or preparing an insurance company representative for deposition through mock cross-examination, our attorneys are hands-on working cooperatively with adjusters, in house counsel and investigators to insure our carriers' interests are protected.
Representative Matters
August 2024, Williamson County Chancery Court (Tennessee): Nutrisystem, Inc., et al. v. LM Insurance Corporation, et al., No. 21CV-50728. In this insurance coverage dispute, ACE American Insurance Company argued that a CGL policy issued by LM Insurance Corporation provided primary coverage for a trademark infringement claim and that, subsequent to exhaustion of that CGL policy, ACE’s Digital Technology and Professional Liability Insurance Policy applied on a pro rata basis with a Commercial Umbrella policy issued by Liberty Insurance Corporation. On behalf of the Liberty entities, Elizabeth Bass argued that Liberty’s policies did not afford coverage for the trademark infringement claims, and ACE was solely responsible for defense and indemnity. Chancellor Woodruff agreed with Ms. Bass, concluding the IP exclusion of the Liberty policies barred coverage for the underlying claims and entering judgment in favor of Liberty.
December 2023, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky: Westfield Insurance Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC and Doster Commercial Construction, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-639. On behalf of Westfield Insurance Company, Elizabeth filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the insurer had no duty under a Commercial General Liability policy of insurance to defend or indemnify its named insured, a concrete subcontractor, or a purported additional insured, the general contractor, related to alleged defects in the construction of student housing developments in Louisville, Kentucky. Elizabeth filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In its opinion granting the motion, the Court relied on Kentucky precedent which states faulty workmanship is not an “occurrence.” The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that allegations of design defects removed the construction from the control of the subcontractor and the contractor, rendering it accidental and therefore an “occurrence” for purposes of CGL coverage.
February, 2024, Kentucky Court of Appeals: Arnold, et al. v. Mediport, LLC, et al., Case No. 2022-CA-0078-MR. Mr. Arnold experienced cardiac arrest at an extreme foot race event held at the Kentucky Horse Park. His wife filed a wrongful death action against Mediport, LLC, the entity retained by event organizers to provide first aid and EMT services to participants. Mrs. Arnold further sought a declaration that the auto liability policy issued by Westfield Insurance Company to Mediport provided coverage for the wrongful death claim. She argued that the Mediport vans were not equipped with necessary medical equipment and that the medical technician was unable to open the rear door of the van to access a backboard, resulting in a delay in Mr. Arnold’s treatment. She claimed these issues concerned “use, operation, or maintenance” of the vehicle, which brought it within the policy’s insuring provision. On Behalf of Westfield, Elizabeth Bass and Zach Epperson argued that the Westfield policy did not provide coverage because the claims did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered automobile. The Scott Circuit Court agreed and entered summary judgment in favor of Westfield. The ruling survived a motion to alter, amend or vacate, and was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
October 2023, Circuit Court for Madison County (Tennessee): Roberts v. Kentucky National Insurance Company, et al. Plaintiffs brought suit against their insurer for alleged breach of duties under a homeowners policy of insurance following a burst pipe and ensuing water damage to their home. The Complaint included claims of breach of contract and insurance fraud; sought punitive damages, treble damages, and attorney fees; and asked the Court to appoint an umpire to conclude the policy’s appraisal procedures. Elizabeth filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, as the Complaint did not aver that the Plaintiffs had completed the appraisal process, a prerequisite to filing suit against the insurer; the insurance fraud statutes do not apply to representations made by or on behalf of an insurer; and the only damages available for an insurer’s bad faith failure to pay an insurance claim are limited to those found in T.C.A. § 56-8-113 and T.C.A. § 56-7-105(a). The Court agreed, and the suit was dismissed.
A mental health patient had a sexual relationship with her therapist and subsequently filed suit against her therapist and his employer. In a separate action, Richardson Law Group secured a declaratory judgment that the employer's insurance policy did not extend coverage to the therapist's sexual relationships with his clients. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that there was no coverage for the therapist's acts. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. Ky. 2008).
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Nat H. Sandler, 381 Fed. Appx. 554 (6th Cir. Ky. 2010). A doctor employed by a mental health clinic prescribed antidepressants to a former patient and social acquaintance, after advising the former patient not to seek help at the clinic. The former patient complied with the doctor's advice. The patient subsequently committed suicide, and his estate brought suit against the doctor and the clinic. In an action for declaratory judgment, Richardson Law Group successfully argued at the trial court that the clinic's insurance policy did not cover the doctor's treatment of a patient outside the scope of his employment with the clinic. Walters' advocacy persuaded the appellate court to affirm on the basis that the doctor was not acting in furtherance of his employer's business when he advised the former patient to seek treatment elsewhere and due to the fact that the decedent never became a patient of the clinic.
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Young, 2012 U.S. Dist. Richardson Law Group represented an insurance carrier that had issued a policy to a community and technical college. A student at the college was involved in a fatal accident driving home from school in a pickup truck that had been repaired at the college as part of a hands-on project. In finding the carrier had no obligation to provide coverage, because had no substantial control over the vehicle once it left campus; " and further held that “a reasonable person . . . would not say that [the college] had 'borrowed' the […] vehicle" at the time of the accident. LEXIS 158915, 7-8 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 6, 2012).
Robinson v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. Richardson Law Group successfully defended a first party declaratory judgment action upholding a denial of coverage where a homeowner’s adult son was allegedly manufacturing methamphetamine in the home which lead to a fire significantly damaging, and contaminating the residence. The court found that the production of methamphetamine was on par with the production of moonshine and held that “the conduct of [the son] in producing methamphetamine within the plaintiff's residence increased the hazard that the residence would be destroyed by fire or explosion and was excluded by the Policy.” LEXIS 35028, 6-7 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 14, 2012).