Insurance Litigation

Related Professionals

Overview

Kirkland has a very deep team with its counsel possessing a broad myriad of skill sets. - Chambers USA, 2022
Kirkland & Ellis has a record of trying — and winning — important insurance cases for its clients. On the policyholder side, we represent corporate insureds in disputes involving CGL, product liability, D&O, business interruption, and EPL policies. On the insurance industry side, we have successfully represented insurance companies and brokers in commercial litigation involving employment discrimination, ERISA, contract, and antitrust disputes. By focusing our litigation practice on different substantive areas for policyholders than for insurers, we are able to represent clients of both types while bringing to bear our unique appreciation for the dynamics of the insurance industry.

Our insurance coverage practice is unique in its trial focus. We identify the most significant issues up front and focus on developing the facts and law into a clear, persuasive narrative that a court or jury will not only understand but will also adopt. We have deep experience in disputes involving complex, historical insurance programs, transactional and corporate successorship issues, and underlying liabilities of all types.

Our combination of courtroom advocacy and substantive experience is second to none. We pursue our clients’ rights aggressively and develop efficient, creative approaches to litigation. Kirkland has achieved victories for our clients in insurance disputes at the trial and appellate level in state and federal courts throughout the country, in U.S. and international arbitrations, and in mediations and direct negotiations.

Experience

Baxter International, Inc. v. AXA Versicherung AG (N.D. Ill.; 7th Cir.)
Represented Baxter International in a lawsuit seeking insurance coverage for underlying product liability claims arising from defective blood factor produced by a company that Baxter acquired. Kirkland defeated the insurer's motion to dismiss in 2012, and the court denied interlocutory review of the decision in 2013. Settlement achieved in 2017.
Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., et al. v. Humble Surgical Hospital, LLC (5th Cir.)
Represented Cigna Corp. and certain of its affiliates in its appeal of a $17 million adverse judgment in an ERISA case concerning the proper interpretation of its out-of-network payment practices. Kirkland took the case over on appeal after Cigna lost the district court case following a three-week bench trial. In 2017, the Fifth Circuit accepted Kirkland's arguments across the board and reversed the district court's judgment. The decision will have significant implications for Cigna and other managed care companies.

North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co., Ltd., et al. v. CIGNA Healthcare, et al. (S.D. Tex.; 5th Cir.)
Defending CIGNA in a nine-year ERISA lawsuit alleging underpayment of claims to an out-of-network provider. Early in the case, Kirkland won two partial motions to dismiss and two partial motions for summary judgment — effectively disposing of all remaining claims. In 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. In 2016, the district court ruled on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, including finding that plaintiff could not claim damages on the vast majority of its claims. In 2018, following a two-week bench trial, the court held that CIGNA did not abuse its discretion by interpreting its health plans to exclude coverage when a health care provider waives coinsurance and deductible payments from patients. The court further held that CIGNA had developed sufficient evidence that the hospital was engaged in that practice, and that CIGNA did not violate ERISA by sharply reducing its insurance payments to the hospital. The ruling affects many other pending cases involving similar payment disputes between medical providers and health insurers. Ongoing appeal.

Ambac Assurance / Military Housing Debt Service Reserve Fund Litigation (Multiple)
Represented 12 privatized military housing projects in multiple lawsuits arising from a New York bond insurer's claim that the projects had breached their obligation to pay $220 million in additional debt service reserves. During three years of hard-fought litigation, Kirkland won every substantive battle, including three summary judgments against Ambac on the ultimate merits, three preliminary injunctions, and multiple motions to compel after Ambac failed to produce key documents. In 2018, Kirkland achieved a highly favorable settlement for its clients.

Union Carbide Corp. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.; N.Y. App. Div.; N.Y.)
Serving as co-lead counsel for Union Carbide Corp. in precedent-setting insurance litigation against more than 50 insurers to obtain coverage for historic asbestos liabilities. In 2010, won summary judgment on the applicability of multi-year limits and the expected/intended loss doctrine; both rulings were affirmed on appeal in 2011 and 2012, respectively. Certain aspects of the case are still pending in the trial court.

Practices