Verdicts & Settlements

The firm and its members have had decisions reported in the New York Law Journal, the New York Times, and the Insurance Advocate.

Multimillion Dollar Victories

$150,000,000 Business Income Recovery from One Beacon Insurance Company for 9/11 loss$150,000,000

$1,570,000 against Lincoln Benefit Life Company

1/11/2017; SDNY: Lincoln benefit Life v Wilson ­­–Dismissed charges against Wilson and awarded Wilson $1,575,023.39 recovery on counterclaims.

Subsequently, Lincoln Benefit Life sued James W. Wilson, who was Sam Gindi’s insurance broker for the life insurance policy signed in 1999. Wilson knew to look no further than Weg and Myers for help. Lincoln believed Wilson negligently brokered the contract between Gindi and Lincoln, thereby making him liable for damages owed to Lollytogs in the prior suit. Dennis D’Antonio firmly denied the negligence and counter-sued for commissions owed to Wilson as a result of the Gindi’s conversion to universal life insurance. Lincoln claimed they had an affirmative defense on the basis that Wilson provided no consideration for the universal life policy. D’Antonio vehemently argued that consideration was given at the time the contract was first signed in 1999. The court agreed. On January 11th, 2017, the U.S. District Court in Nebraska granted Wilson’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing all of Lincoln Benefit Life’s claims and awarding Wilson $1,575,023.39 in commission owed for breach of contract. On October 30, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s finding in favor of Wilson.

$1,120,000 against Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

09/21/2017; 2nd Circuit-Warehouse Wins and Spirits v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Co. of Am. ­– Reaffirmed SJ and Bench trial as to Damages for $1,121,923.43.

Warehouse Wines, a retail seller of wine and liquor, lost over 4,000 products after being the victim of grand larceny. Warehouse Wines entered a contract, with the eventual perpetrator, to transport and store their excess inventory. Over the course of a few months, Warehouse Wines investigated the missing products further, eventually leading to the arrest of the perpetrator who was stealing the product instead of storing it for Warehouse Wines. Warehouse Wines submitted a claim for loss of inventory under its property insurance policy with Travelers. Travelers, arguing that the “Dishonest Acts” exclusion applied, denied the claim. All parties agreed that the “Dishonest Act” exclusion applied because of the theft. Weg and Myers skillfully argued that the court should apply the “carrier for hire” exception to the “Dishonest Acts” exclusion. The court agreed that the “carrier for hire” exception applied, despite Traveler’s argument that the perpetrator, acting as both the warehouseman of excess goods and the transporter of the goods, could claim that he was acting as the former, rather than the latter at the time of the theft. After the court granted Weg and Myers motion for summary judgment regarding liability, Judge Katherine B. Forrest in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, found that damages accumulated to over $1 million. Travelers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but on September 21 st, 2017, Weg and Myers scored another victory for their client. This time, after pre-judgment interest, the damages totaled $1,121,923.43.

$2,920,000 against Zurich American Insurance Company

01/26/2017; 1st Department- El-AD 250 West LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Company – Settled $2,925,000.00

Zurich American Insurance Company sold an insurance risk policy to insure a construction project located at 250 West Street in lower Manhattan. El-Ad 250 West was the developer of the Construction project. Within this policy was a provision that provided coverage for certain economic losses incurred by El-Ad 250 West as the result of a delay in completing the project. After Superstorm Sandy delayed the project, El-Ad 250 West looked to Zurich for appropriate payments. Zurich believed they could get the case dismissed because El-Ad 250 West has a similarly named parent company in Nevada, and the claim required there to only be one company insured. Weg and Myers strongly opposed this argument. The court sided with Weg and Myers. The case continued on, with Weg and Myers deciding it was in the best interest of their client to settle the case for $2,925,000.00.

$23,300,000 against Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.

10/01/2014; SDNY: Cammeby’s Management Company, LLC v. Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. – Jury Verdict $23,205,479.45 –Reaffirmed 6/17/2016

Cammeby’s Management Company suffered more than $30 million in losses as a result of Superstorm Sandy. Cammeby’s, under the impression that their $30 million flood insurance policy covered a majority of the damage, was distraught when they were told that were being paid only $10 million. Cammeby’s was informed that its insurance broker, Alliant Services, had agreed to reduce the policy from $10 million to $30 million. With the stakes this high, Cammeby’s looked to Weg and Myers for legal representation. As it became clearer that the policy was indeed reduced, Weg and Myers mounted a strong attack claiming that Alliant Services negligently reduced their client’s flood insurance policy. During a trial in August of 2014, a jury in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York agreed with Dennis D’Antonio’s argument that Alliant acted negligently when it reduced the policy. Therefore, Alliant was liable to pay out the difference created by the negligent act. After including pre-judgment interest, the award for damages totaled $23,205,479.45.

In January of 2016, Alliant Services was granted a new trial on the defense that Cammeby ratified the $20 million reduction to its insurance coverage. On June 17, 2016, once again, the jury found in favor of Cammeby. A jury found that Alliant had failed to prove Cammeby ratified the negligent reduction of the policy. In addition, Alliant failed to show that pre-judgment interest should have stopped accruing after the first trial. In this instance, because Alliant got a new trial, pre-trial judgment interest, which is larger than post-trial judgment interest, continued until of the second trial.

$1,500,000 against Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company

09/27/2013; Superior Court of NJ, Atlantic County- DGMB CASINO, LLC d/b/a Resorts Casino Hotel v. Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company – Summary Judgment for $1,518,449.78

On August 29, 2011, Tropical Storm Irene made landfall in Southern New Jersey. Due to the severity of the storm, both the State and local government ordered for closure of Atlantic City’s hotels and casinos. Resorts Casino Hotel was shut down for three full days and needed six additional days to restore the business to its pre-storm condition. These nine days should have been fully covered under Resort Casino’s insurance policy with Executive Specialty Insurance Company, but payment was disputed. To resolve the issue, Weg and Myers intervened to provide legal representation. Before the commencement of trial, Joshua Mallin, writing a motion for summary judgment, argued that his Resort Casino’s should be appropriately paid for their loss. Mallin argued that because the policy was ambiguously written regrading windstorms and the interruption of business, the court should adopt the Weg and Myers’ suggested methodology for calculating the deductible. The Superior Court of New Jersey in Atlantic County found that Summary Judgment for Resorts Casino Hotel was appropriate, with damages totaling $1,518,449.78.

$4,200,000 against Chubb

$1,800,000 against Generali Group

$1,200,000 against Nationwide Insurance

$1,250,000 against Lloyds of London

Page of 2