Trial and appellate attorneys with unmatched expertise in insurance and commercial litigation
Peters & Nye provides an exceptional litigation practice led by experienced trial and appellate attorneys. We represent clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts throughout the country and in domestic and international arbitration proceedings. Our nationwide appellate practice handles all phases of post-judgment and appellate litigation.
Our litigation attorneys apply their expertise, innovation and creativity to secure favorable results. Peters & Nye offers insurance clients an unparalleled opportunity to be represented by counsel who have devoted their careers to litigation and who are intimately familiar with all aspects of the litigation process. Peters & Nye’s attorneys represent insurers in high profile insurance coverage and bad faith litigation involving various insurance products, such as directors and officers, fidelity bonds and commercial crime policies, trust and fiduciary liability policies, errors and omissions policies and commercial general liability policies. Our attorneys repeatedly secure judgments and arbitration awards favorable to insurers, several of which involved matters of first impression.
Peters & Nye’s attorneys also represent companies and individuals in complex commercial disputes, employment disputes, accountant malpractice, product liability, medical negligence, attorney malpractice and personal injury cases, securing favorable results through trial, appeal and settlement.
Sensitive to their clients’ needs, Peters & Nye’s attorneys recognize that settlement and mediation is sometimes a viable option to the high cost of litigation. Our attorneys negotiate favorable settlements in mediations presided over by nationally-renowned mediators with respect to a wide array of insurance coverage and other civil litigation.
Our litigation attorneys’ most recent accomplishments include:
Stephanie Lunde v. The Cincinnati Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70378 (D. Minn. April 26, 2018) – Peters & Nye secured an order granting the defendant a motion to dismiss the bad faith claims alleged against the insurer in a dispute over coverage for a criminal indictment for bank fraud, finding that the reasons given for the coverage denial were reasonable and did not constitute bad faith.
Richard Samson and Ross Richardson v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, 470 B.R. 871, 2012 WL 845472, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1029 (Bkrtcy. O.Mont. March 12, 2012); Richardson, et al. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, No. CV-12-17-BU-SHE (D. Mont.); Richardson v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (ln re Blixseth), 593 Fed. Appx. 641, 2015 U.S.App. LEXIS 2088 {9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2015) – Peters & Nye secured judgment for Cincinnati Insurance Company in a multi-million dollar insurance coverage claim following trial in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana, and defeated the insu red’s appeals of that verdict to the Montana District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a contentious insurance coverage dispute that involved one of the largest bankruptcies in the State of Montana. Through the litigation the Plaintiffs sought to recover a $9,699,455 stipulated judgment from Cincinnati, an amount which exceeded the Policy limit. The litigation involved the issue of (1) whether a Proof of Claim filed in a bankruptcy estate constitutes a “claim” for a “wrongful act” that was made during the policy period of a Directors and Officers Liability Policy; (2) whether the notice of the Proof of Claim submitted by an entity who was not a Policy insured triggered the insurer’s duty to defend the Proof of Claim; (3) whether Cincinnati was liable for a $9,699,455 stipulated judgment due to its alleged breach of the duty to defend; (4) whether Cincinnati violated the automatic stay of the bankruptcy case of a former officer of the insured, Edra Blixseth, rendering it liable for the stipulated judgment; and (5) whether Cincinnati had violated the Montana Unfair Claims Practices Act. Ms. Tordai secured judgment for Cincinnati from the Bankruptcy Court and defeated the Plaintiff’s appeal to the Montana District Court and the Plaintiff’s second appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Tordai also defeated the Plaintiff’s motions to the 9th Circuit for rehearing/rehearing en banc and to recall the 9th Circuit appellate mandate. Peters & Nye also secured an award of costs for its client.
Cracker Barrel v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19161, 2012 WL 3632814, 2012 Fed. App. 01001N (6th Cir.) – Peters & Nye represented Cincinnati Insurance Company against Cracker Barrel Old Country Store’s attempt to obtain coverage for a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Peters & Nye secured an order granting summary judgment for Cincinnati Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and an order from the U.S. Appellate Court for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming summary judgment. The appellate court held that the EEOC lawsuit predated the inception of the claims made employment practices liability insurance policy because it arose out of charge of discrimination that predated the inception of the policy.
Superior Beverage Group v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, 2012 Pa. Super. LEXIS 527, 2012 WL 3057340 (Pa. Superior Court) – Peters & Nye successfully defeated an insured’s attempt to implicate two policy limits in connection with a single wrongful employment termination lawsuit by securing summary judgment for the insurer and defeating the insured’s appeal of that order. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that an amended complaint that added new causes of action of race discrimination to the prior age discrimination causes of action, is not a new “claim” under a claims made employment practices liability insurance policy.
High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, London, England – Peters & Nye secured an anti-suit injunction in favor of arbitration resulting in voluntary dismissal without prejudice of client in U.S. coverage litigation.
Confidential Dispute Resolution Proceeding – Peters & Nye obtained an Advisory Opinion in favor of client from a former U.S. Federal Court Judge finding absence of coverage under Employment Practices Policy based on Prior Notice Exclusion and Prior Knowledge Exclusion.
Area 15 Regional Planning Commission v. Cincinnati Insurance, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66776 (S.D. Iowa, June 6, 2011). Secured an order granting the insurer judgment on the pleadings, finding that an administrative agency’s demand letter is not a claim.
Selective Ins. Co. v. City of Paris, et al., 681 F.Supp.2d 975 (C.D. Ill. 2010). Secured an order granting a Policy Professional Liability and Umbrella insurer summary judgment. The Court held that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the City of Paris under its 1999 to 2007 policies against two lawsuits which arose out of the wrongful arrest, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment of the plaintiffs in 1987 for murders they were accused of committing in 1986.
Secured a unanimous arbitration order in favor of the insurer finding that claims made after the expiration of the policy with respect to the insured’s foreign liquidation proceedings did not relate to securities class action litigation that had been filed against the insured during the policy period.
Amway Asia Pacific, Ltd. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2008 WL 4740410 (W.D.Mich. 2008). Secured the dismissal of a suit for failure to properly serve the complaint on the service agent designated in a policy endorsement.
Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. LaMattina & Associates, et al., State of New York Supreme Court (Index No. 600906/06). Secured summary judgment for the insurer, with the Court finding that a Title Agents/Abstractors/Escrow Agents Professional Liability Policy should be rescinded, and also applying the commingling and conversion exclusions and breach of cooperation clause to bar coverage.
National Union v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 971 So.2d 885, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2827 (Fla.App. 2007). Obtained an order granting summary judgment to a directors and officers liability insurer due to the failure of the insured to comply with the policy’s notice requirement.
Kloots v. American Express Tax & Business Services, 2007 WL 1451827 (6th Cir. 2007). Secured the denial of a summary judgment motion, and the affirmance of that opinion on appeal, on the ground that a tort and breach of contract claim against an accountant for negligent valuation of ESOP stock is not preempted by ERISA.
Ary v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, 2006 WL 1360095 (D.Kan. 2006). Secured summary judgment for a directors and officers liability insurer through the enforcement of the dishonesty and personal profiting exclusions.
Stevens, et al. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company and Winifred Law Opportunity Center Corporation, 2002 WL 984631 (Iowa App. 2002). Obtained summary judgment and appellate decision affirming summary judgment, for a director and officer liability insurer on the basis of capacity and because the claim pre-dated the policy period.
Youell v. Grimes, 217 F.Supp. 2d 1167 (D.Kan. 2002). Secured summary judgment for the directors and officers liability insurer due to the insured’s breach of the cooperation clause.
