Knowles v. Standard Fire Insurance Company 133 S. Ct. 1345 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013)— This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States and resulted in a 9-0 opinion in favor of our client. Our petition for certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court after the Eighth Circuit had declined to hear a discretionary appeal and after the Supreme Court had denied a petition for certiorari on the same issue the year before. This is the first case in which the Supreme Court granted review under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The issue on appeal was whether a named plaintiff in a putative class action can defeat federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by stipulating to limit damages to $5 million or less even if the amount potentially recoverable by the putative class would exceed the federal jurisdictional amount in the absence of the stipulation. The Supreme Court accepted our argument that the federal court jurisdiction could not be defeated by such a stipulation. The underlying case involved the alleged failure to pay the general contractor overhead and profit as part of the settlement of property insurance claims and was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff after the case was remanded to the federal district court.

Travco v. Ward 468 Fed. Appx. 195 (4th Cir. 2012) and 284 Va. 547 (Va., 2012) – This was the nation's leading case on the question of whether coverage existed under property insurance policies for losses caused by the presence of Chinese Drywall. We brought this declaratory judgment action on behalf of the insurer, which was a Travelers subsidiary. We successfully obtained summary judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On appeal, after briefing and argument, the US Fourth Circuit certified most of the coverage issues to the Virginia Supreme Court. The Virginia Supreme Court then affirmed the rulings of the federal district court, and the US Fourth Circuit subsequently affirmed the judgment in its entirety. Steve Goldman argued the motion for summary judgment before the district court and the appeals in both the US Fourth Circuit and the Virginia Supreme Court.

Allen v. USAA 790 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. Fla., 2015) – In this putative class action, the plaintiff alleged that our client violated the Florida statutes regarding mandatory code upgrade coverage. Steve Goldman obtained summary judgment for our client in the federal district court for the Northern District of Florida and successfully argued the appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the judgment in favor of our client.

Thatcher v. Hanover Insurance Company 659 F.3d 1212 (8th Cir. 2011) – This appeal also arose out of a putative class action alleging a failure to pay general contractor overhead and profit as a part of the settlement of property insurance claims. After we removed the action (originally brought in Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, a notorious "magnet" jurisdiction) to the federal court, the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice so that he could file a more "streamlined" complaint in the state court that would defeat federal jurisdiction. After the federal district court judge granted the plaintiff's motion, we appealed, arguing that a Rule 41 dismissal cannot be used as a forum shopping vehicle. The Eighth Circuit agreed, and reversed the district court, reinstituting federal jurisdiction. Steve Goldman argued the appeal before the Eighth Circuit.

Moore v. Travelers 312 Fed. Appx. 911 (11th Cir. 2009) – This appeal also arose out of a putative class action alleging a failure to pay general contractor overhead and profit as a part of the settlement of property insurance claims. Here, our client demanded appraisal of the named plaintiff's claim after the action had been commenced in the US District Court for Georgia. We moved to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff had not complied with the conditions precedent in the policy before commencing suit. The District Court granted our motion. On appeal, the 11^th Circuit affirmed.

Globecon v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company 434 F.3d 165, 176 (2d Cir. 2006) – This appeal arose out of a business interruption claim arising out of the 9/11 catastrophe in New York. The insured under The Hartford's policy attempted to assign their rights after the loss to an entity that purchased the insured's assets. The Second Circuit found that the purchasing entity could only pursue a claim if they could show substantial compliance with the policy conditions and, even then, they could not pursue any claims for their own loss of business income subsequent to the date of the assignment. Similarly, the Second Circuit found that the purchaser's claim for consequential damages could not be pursued.

Crowley v. Travelers 919 A.2d 979 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) - Steve Goldman argued this appeal, in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a decision (actually revoked its early grant of certiorari as "improvidently granted") denying class certification in a statewide overhead and profit class action.

Lindas v. First Floridian 114 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) – This was another overhead and profit class action. After a three day class certification hearing, the plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied. On appeal, the Florida Court of Appeal affirmed without oral argument.

Sher v. Lafayette Insurance Company 973 So. 2d 39 (La.App. 4 Cir., 2007) aff'd 952 So. 2d 683 (La., Mar. 13, 2007) (Louisiana Court of Appeals and Louisiana Supreme Court) – This case was critically important to the insurance industry, as it established that the flood insurance exclusion in property insurance policies applied to the flooding that took place in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation 524 F.3d 700 (5th Cir. 2008) – This case was the federal court predecessor to the Sher case, and the opinion of the US 5^th Circuit was critically important to the Louisiana Supreme Court when it took up the appeal in Sher. Following the District Court's decision finding the flood exclusion ambiguous and unenforceable, the 5^th Circuit reversed and found the exclusion unambiguous and enforceable.

Corban v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 20 So. 3d 601, 609 (Miss. 2009) – Steve was an author of the amicus brief on behalf of the American Insurance Association. The Mississippi Supreme Court properly concluded that the flood exclusion applied to the storm surge following Hurricane Katrina and that the anti-concurrent causation provision in the policy applied to simultaneous indistinguishable damage (i.e., where both forces acted concurrently and it was impossible to determine whether damage was caused by wind or flood).

Chauvin v. State Farm et al 495 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2007) – This was the federal court counterpart to Landry. Both the district court and the 5^th Circuit found that Louisiana's Valued Policy Law did not apply to losses in which most of the damage was caused by an excluded peril.

Garson Management v. Travelers No. 4169/99 (NY Sup. Ct 2000) aff'd Garson Mgt. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., 300 A.D.2d 538, 539, 752 N.Y.S.2d 696 (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division – 1^st Department, 2002) – This case involved the question of coverage for structural damage to an apartment complex in Yonkers, New York. Steve Goldman obtained summary judgment for the insurer and successfully defended the appeal. I argued both the summary judgment motion and the appeal.

Rego v. Connecticut Insurance Placement Facility 22 Conn.App. 428, 430, 577 A.2d 1105 (1990), rev'd on other grounds, 219 Conn. 339, 593 A.2d 491 (1991) (Connecticut Supreme Court and Connecticut Appellate Court) – This appeal involved the question of the burden of proof regarding the Misrepresentation/Fraud condition in property insurance policies. The issue was whether the insurer's burden of proof could be met by a preponderance of the evidence, or whether the insurer could only meet its burden of proof with clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the preponderance standard. Steve Goldman argued the appeal and received the David Neiditz Award from the University of Connecticut for the year's best appellate brief in the State.

Chapman v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company 39 Conn. App. 306, 665 A.2d 112 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1995) – This appeal arose out of the trial of an arson case in which the insurer was allowed to introduce otherwise hearsay evidence in order to defend itself against allegations of bad faith and violations of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act. The argument for the admissibility of the evidence was that it was information that the insurer's decision-maker had at the time the decision to deny was made, and that the insurer had a right to put that information before the jury. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling allowing the evidence to be admitted. Steve Goldman tried the case, wrote the appellate brief and argued the appeal.

MBS Management Services, Inc. v. Homeland Insurance Company In re MBS Mgmt. Services, Inc., 690 F.3d 352, 356 (5th Cir.2012) – This was a business interruption case that arose out of losses caused by Hurricane Katrina. After several years of litigation, on the eve of trial, we obtained rulings from the federal district court that the plaintiff could only recover for losses that were caused by the interruption of the insured's business, and could not recover for losses caused by the interruption of the insured's affiliate, which was not insured under the policy. The plaintiff came to the conclusion that this ruling would be fatal to its case, and voluntarily dismissed the case so that it could pursue an appeal before the 5^th Circuit. On appeal, the 5^th Circuit affirmed the trial court, resulting in our client's escaping any liability. Steve Goldman was lead trial counsel in the trial court and argued the appeal before the Fifth Circuit.

Grantham Education v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company 56 Sc 3d 462 (La.App. 1 Cir., Oct. 29, 2010) – This was a business interruption case arising out of Hurricane Katrina. We obtained partial summary judgment on behalf of the insurer based on a finding that the civil authority coverage was subject to the policy limit for business interruption. The insured appealed, and the Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. Steve Goldman argued the summary judgment motion and the appeal for the insurer.

Lead Counsel for several insurers in defense of numerous large lawsuits arising out of claims for business losses resulting from events of September 11.  The largest claims were in excess of $100 million, and most were in excess of $10 million. Litigation spawned many of the country's most frequently cited judicial decisions in business interruption, including Streamline Capital, L.L.C. v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 468 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2005) and Lava Trading, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 466 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2005).

Paradies Shops, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 2004 WL 5704715 (N.D. Ga. Dec.15, 2004) - Obtained summary judgment from federal court in Atlanta in defense of civil authority claim prosecuted by owner of airport stores throughout the United States.

Wells Dairy v. Travelers 241 F.Supp.2d 945, 966 (N.D.Iowa 2003) - Defended insurer in $30 million bad faith and breach of contract action arising from the denial of a national ice cream producer's extra expense claim.

Lisa Bruno v. The Travelers Companies et al. 172 Conn App 717 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2017) Represented defendant insurer in case involving allegations by a former insured in connection with the insurer’s denial of coverage for a fire loss and the insurer’s subsequent testimony at the insured’s divorce proceedings concerning the basis for the denial. On appeal, the Court held that the insurer’s testimony and conduct at the hearing was protected by the absolute immunity afforded witnesses in judicial proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff’s defamation and related claims arising out of that conduct and testimony were barred.

Shri Gayatri LLC v. The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company 206 F. Supp 3d 684 (US District Court, Mass., 2016) Successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of an insurance company client in federal court, defeating plaintiff’s allegations of breach of good faith. The owner of a hotel had sought to recover for the total loss of the business due to a 2011 tornado in Massachusetts followed by rain and ice storms later that year. The court agreed with the insurer that the insured’s failure to repair or replace the property within two years of the date of loss, as required by the insurance contract, meant there was no coverage for replacement cost, rejecting the insureds’ argument that delays in claim resolution were the carrier's fault, and should extend the two-year period.

ManorCare of New Jersey v. Travelers 210 F.3d 358 (US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) – This case also involved the question of coverage for losses relating to defective roofing materials. We obtained summary judgment from the federal District Court, and that judgment was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Travelers v. American Media (S.D. of Fla.)  Advised and represented Travelers in declaratory judgment action arising out of anthrax contamination of the headquarters of the National Enquirer. The building had been contaminated by an letter containing anthrax addressed to the photo editor, causing his death and the evacuation of the structure. The case turned on whether the vandalism exception to the contamination exclusions applied. After the declaratory judgment clarified the dispute, the matter was settled on favorable terms.

Related Companies v. Travelers (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division – 2^nd Department) – This appeal arose out of a claim for termite damage to a condominium complex in Jacksonville, Florida. We brought a declaratory judgment action in the New York state courts and obtained summary judgment. We then successfully defended the appeal. Steve Goldman argued both the summary judgment motion and the appeal.

ManorCare of Kansas v. Travelers No. 81006 (Kan. App. 1999) – This case involved the issue of coverage for losses relating to defective roofing materials. Steve Goldman obtained summary judgment for the insurer in the trial court and the judgment was affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals. Steve argued the motion for summary judgment before the trial court and the appeal before the Kansas Court of Appeals.

Poretsky v. HiRise Engineering, 2016 WL 5678380, (US District Court, ED New York, 2016) Represented insurance company in obtaining dismissal of RICO claims alleging improper conduct in adjustment and settlement of flood insurance claims under federal flood insurance policies. 

Lead trial counsel in defense of $100 million Hurricane Katrina commercial property case. First Hurricane Katrina case the client insurance company allowed before a New Orleans jury. Tried to successful verdict and settled on appeal for less than 2% of the claim.

Defense of insurer in arbitration and state court proceedings in Florida in $300 million property damage, business interruption, and consequential damage claim brought by owners of Miami Beach resort because of Hurricane Andrew. After 23 days of evidentiary hearings, case was resolved on very favorable terms (less than was offered before arbitration commenced).

Defended insurer in a case brought in the Central District of California in which the plaintiff sought to bring a class action involving two classes of allegedly aggrieved policyholders. The first class was allegedly deprived of payment of general contractor overhead and profit as a part of its damages. The second class was allegedly deprived of payment of sales tax as a part of its damages. After extensive discovery and motion practice, the class action allegations were voluntarily dismissed and the case was resolved on favorable terms.

Representation of insurers in complex insurance dispute in federal court, Eastern District of Louisiana, involving Hurricane Katrina property damage and business interruption claim for over $27 million and bad faith claims of over $100 million, where bad faith claims were dismissed based on summary judgment briefing and expert was precluded from testifying as to damages included in initial report based on motion in limine. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case for the purpose of taking an appeal, and the district court's rulings were affirmed on appeal.