.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Our Property Litigation Practice Group

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 1, April 2022

April 1, 2022

by James H. Cole

The Property Litigation Practice Group is part of Marshall Dennehey’s insurance services umbrella and responds to both personal and commercial lines’ claims. There are few areas of the insurance industry that involve such direct personal contact with insureds in their time of need than first party claims arising out of homeowners and property insurance policies. The frequency and severity of these claims are rising rapidly, both due to more intense weather events and to strategic pushes by certain attorneys, contractors/mitigation vendors, and public adjusters who attempt to leverage local laws and public attitudes in order to increase claim payout. Of course, this increases the cost to consumers throughout the country. 
    
The direct personal contact with the insureds, the complex nature of the policies at issue, the limitless number of claims scenarios, combined with the ever-increasing percentage of insureds represented by public adjusters, make this area of insurance claims ripe for lawsuits. When other unique areas of dispute—such as appraisal, matching and overhead, and profit are considered, sometimes during catastrophe (CAT) operations—the importance of having legal counsel concentrating his or her practice on property litigation cannot be underestimated. While all of our property litigation/coverage attorneys are familiar with these matters, the issues are magnified in the state of Florida, where the state’s fee-shifting statutes have caused Florida to be far and away the leader in generating first party property lawsuits. In fact, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), Florida accounts for 76% of all litigation against insurers nationwide, while only accounting for 8% of all homeowners claims opened. Led by shareholder Michael Packer*, our Florida offices are fully staffed with attorneys who solely defend such cases on behalf of insurers across the entire state. 

Our group is routinely called upon to analyze and defend admitted and authorized carriers, surplus and specialty lines carriers, and policies issued by overseas insurers or through the London market in all property and casualty lines of insurance.

It should be noted that our services go beyond representing insurers after a lawsuit is filed. Much of our practice involves services such as:

•    Coordinating counsel services for pre-litigation commercial, residential and marine claims consultation, including such issues as business interruption, extra expense, profit and overhead “matching,” and appraisal;
•    Drafting reservation of rights and coverage position letters;
•    Drafting responses to Civil Remedy Notices of Insurer Violations;
•    Drafting property coverage opinion letters;
•    Representation during pre-suit ADR, including mediations, appraisals and arbitrations;
•    Regulatory consultation and responding to Insurance Department complaints and inquiries;
•    Examinations Under Oath to clarify facts and coverage, as well as assisting in SIU investigations;
•    Assisting in the investigation after receipt of a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation and drafting responses to the notices;
•    Training of management and staff; 
•    Selection of vendors; and
•    Assisting in developing claims protocols and drafting or revising policy language. 
We are always happy to field any questions or concerns in the first party property arena. I encourage you to reach out to me or Michael Packer with any questions. 

*Jim serves as Assistant Director of our Professional Liability Department and Chair of the Property Litigation Practice Group. He works in our Philadelphia office and can be reached at 215.575.2635 or jhcole@mdwcg.com. Michael Packer, who works in our Fort Lauderdale office, is Co-Chair of our Insurance Services Practice Group and can be reached at 954.847.4921 or mapacker@mdwcg.com.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 1, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Thought Leadership

Delaware Superior Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Legal Malpractice Claims

In the matter of Edelstein v. Kirschner, No. N25C-09-018 FJJ, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 45, at *1 (Super. Ct. Jan. 29, 2026), the plaintiff law firm sued its former client for unpaid legal fees in the amount of $4,399.35. The former client asserted a counterclaim alleging legal malpractice. More, specifically, the former client claimed that his lawyer committed malpractice be recommending that he settle an underlying lawsuit by entering into a stipulated judgment for an excessive amount with interest that was accruing at “an outlandish” interest rate. The law firm moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that its former client had not alleged facts reflecting that he could prove the case within the case. That is, facts reflecting that his attorneys caused him to lose the underlying case. The Superior Court held that while a legal malpractice plaintiff in cases arising from underlying litigation must prove the case within the case to survive a summary judgment motion, he does not need to plead facts reflecting as much in order to survive a motion to dismiss. While this case addresses the pleading requirements of a legal malpractice case in Delaware, it also serves as reminder that chasing unpaid legal fees from a former client can often give rise to a legal malpractice counterclaim. Attorneys seeking to collect unpaid legal fees should ensure that the fees they seek are for a significant amount, which would be recoverable if a judgment is obtained. Otherwise, the effort could backfire.