Insurance Litigation
Related ProfessionalsOverview
Kirkland is our go-to, bet-the-company litigation firm. They have high-quality attorneys who provide superb client service and are incredibly responsive. - Chambers USA
Kirkland & Ellis’ best-in-class insurance recovery practice provides unparalleled support and zealous advocacy for policyholder clients navigating the most novel and high-stakes insurance coverage issues. Our team is led by a core group of experienced trial attorneys with a long track record of success in precedent-setting disputes involving cutting-edge coverage issues.
Our combination of courtroom advocacy and substantive experience is second to none. Our dedicated team of insurance recovery lawyers is adept at navigating the most complex and hot-button insurance disputes, developing and executing winning strategies to maximize client recovery. Leveraging Kirkland’s state-of-the-art litigation platform, we are uniquely equipped to handle insurance coverage disputes of all types and sizes, from streamlined two-party mediations to massive, bet-the-company lawsuits.
Our lawyers have seen it all. We have worked with virtually every line of commercial coverage and have represented policyholder clients of virtually every size, securing 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.
Beyond disputes, our insurance recovery practice supports clients and their boards navigating complex insurance issues in connection with in- and out-of-court restructurings, mergers and acquisitions, and in relation to policy placements. Our lawyers’ unmatched subject matter experience combined with their deep relationships with insurance company executives, industry-leading brokers and insurer-side attorneys, make us an exceptional partner for clients dealing with complex insurance issues.
Experience
Baxter International
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.
Cigna Corp
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.
CIGNA Healthcare
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.
Military Housing Debt Service Reserve Fund
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
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.