Representative Matters

SMD represented a national insurer in a first party property dispute with a mitigation contractor that took an assignment of benefits from the insured. SMD first secured dismissal of the bad faith claims on summary judgment and then a jury verdict equal to the insurer’s pre-trial offer of judgment, resulting in a costs claim by the insurer that exceeds the total of the verdict and costs awarded to the contractor. US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (2024).

SMD represents a national insurer in all of its Louisiana lawsuits by commercial insureds seeing insurance benefits for business losses due to Covid-19; all cases have been dismissed on 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss where several federal district courts found no coverage under our client’s policies for these losses. (2020 – present)

Following a collision between a truck hauling sand and an Amtrack train, resulting in the death of the truck driver and multiple claims by occupants of the train, SMD filed and successfully litigated a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that our client’s commercial auto policy did not provide coverage for the truck because the named insured owner of the truck activated a non-trucking endorsement prior to the accident. The United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court judgment and found that: (1) the non-trucking coverage was valid and enforceable, (2) the named insured’s decision to change to non-trucking coverage on his policy was not a “cancellation” of the policy that required certain notices but rather a change in coverage and (3) the insurer’s certificate of insurance to an additional insured identifying the policy as “non-trucking” was notice to the additional insured of the change in coverage. The Fifth Circuit also rejected the argument that the named insured did not understand the coverage he secured. (2022)

SMD is a lead counsel for a large national insurer and a domestic carrier in the mass litigation in western Louisiana arising out of Hurricanes Laura/Delta; SMD serves on the defense steering committee for the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. SMD has the same roles for the emerging litigation arising out of Hurricane Ida in eastern Louisiana and serves on a defense steering committee for this litigation. (2020-present)

SMD defended a national insurer in a jury trial where the plaintiff claimed serious injury well in excess of the insurer’s minimal policy limits; Plaintiff sought to secure an excess verdict against our client’s insured then obtain assignment of the insured’s bad faith claims against our client/insurer. Despite Plaintiff’s request that the jury award “millions of dollars,” the jury was persuaded by the defense that the injuries were exaggerated. The jury only awarded $190,000 and SMD then facilitated a settlement for less than the verdict and terminated any possible bad faith claim against our client. (2021)

SMD defended a national carrier and its insured in a personal injury suit where Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of the policy limit. SMD won a directed verdict at trial on Plaintiff’s wage/earning capacity claim, thus keeping that issue from consideration by the jury. The scope and nature of Plaintiff’s injuries were hotly contested by SMD.  Due to SMD’s aggressive defense, the jury only awarded damages within the policy limit and SMD then won a post-verdict Motion for New Trial that resulted in the trial court cutting that jury award in half. (2021)

Plaintiff alleged permanent spinal injury requiring injections and surgery from an accident; following aggressive presentation of impeachment evidence by SMD, the trial court found Plaintiff not credible and awarded only $5,000 total. (2019)

Plaintiffs alleged they were injured in a car accident. A deep dive by our lawyers discovered a connection between the insured and Plaintiffs, suggesting a staged wreck, and developed other impeachment evidence. Following trial, the court awarded nothing. (2019)

Plaintiff exclusively alleged Insurer-client owed penalties and attorney’s fees based on bad faith for failure to timely tender UM benefits. Case dismissed on summary judgment, affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Third Circuit with opinion and writ denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court (2018)

Following flooding in North Louisiana during the spring of 2016, Plaintiff (a large apartment complex) filed a flood claim lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana.  After aggressive discovery, the WYO flood insurer filed a summary judgment motion regarding untimely proof of loss issues. Extensive briefing ensued.  The insurer’s motion was granted, and plaintiff’s case was completely dismissed.  (2018)

Plaintiffs claimed entitlement to UM-benefits but did not plead in their petition that the UM-insurer breached the insurance contract. Plaintiffs argued that an UM-plaintiff need not plead breach of contract to assert a cause of action for UM benefits. Insurer argued on exception of no cause of action that plaintiff must assert breach of contract to state a cause of action to recover UM benefits. Sustained by the trial court and then upheld by the Louisiana Fifth Circuit. Appellate ruling altered legal landscape in manner favorable to insurance industry. (2018)

Secured dismissal of bad faith claims against Insurer-client on summary judgment in substantial UM claim brought by a lawyer, involving alleged serious injury and $3 million future wage loss, wherein UM insurer-client took position no UM benefits owed.  Affirmed on appeal to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit. (2018)

Plaintiff, a body shop, sued Insurer-client asserting bad faith claim based on allegations Insurer “steered” insureds away from body shop. Trial court denied Insurer’s motions to dismiss; on appeal the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and found the anti-steering bad faith law did not provide a cause of action in favor of body shops but instead is intended to protect claimants. (2017)

Following a flood event in southern Texas, a Houston area property owner filed a flood litigation claim seeking substantial additional coverage dwelling and contents benefits in the Southern District of Texas.  Following discovery and motion practice, we successfully discredited the Plaintiff’s public adjuster expert and the Court granted the WYO flood insurer’s Summary Judgment Motion, finding the insurer had paid all covered losses and done so at the appropriate sum. Plaintiff did not appeal the district court’s ruling. (2017)

Secured defense verdict for insurer-client following trial involving a first party claim for coverage for an alleged vehicle theft and burn, accompanied by claims for bad faith penalties and fees. Employed technology to develop evidence and argue that the insured failed to meet the burden of proving a covered loss by the use of and, further, that the insured failed to cooperate with the insurer’s adjustment of the claim precluding a finding of bad faith. The bad faith claims were dismissed on summary judgment, and the contract claim was dismissed at trial. (2015)

Defense verdict for insurer-client in a significant UM and bad faith claim presented under a commercial policy following a five-day jury trial. Insured underwent two cervical surgeries; claimed $1 million limits owed and penalties. We developed a failure to cooperate defense during the contentious litigation, arguing the insured’s contractual duties continue through trial. The jury agreed, finding plaintiff breached his cooperation duties and voided the insurance contract. (2013)