Click Here for Printer Friendly Version

Our Cases

TLJ’s lawyers consistently deliver favorable results in complicated and high stakes legal disputes.  They have successfully litigated coverage and extracontractual issues in federal and state trial and appellate courts nationwide, in diverse areas of insurance ranging from directors and officers liability, non-profit organization liability, and professional liability policies to primary and excess general liability, first-party property, and disability policies.  In addition, TLJ’s lawyers have significant experience in representing businesses, associations, and individuals in a wide array of litigated matters including professional malpractice, products liability, banking, and antitrust cases, among many others.  The following cases illustrate the breadth and depth of knowledge and litigation experience that TLJ’s lawyers have developed during their many years in the practice of law, both prior to and subsequent to the founding of TLJ in October 2003. 

TLJ Cases

Sphinx International, Inc. v. Genesis Indemnity Insurance Company, et al., 412 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2005).  In an action arising from a securities class action by a former director and officer of the insured corporation, TLJ obtained summary judgment for an insurer client based on an insured versus insured exclusion in a directors and officers liability policy.  On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously affirmed the trial court’s ruling, rejecting arguments by the appellant that attacked the exclusion on multiple grounds, and finding that the plain meaning of the exclusion supported the insurer’s position. 

TIG Insurance Co. v. Roesler, No. 05-7055, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 24115 (10th Cir. Oct. 12, 2007).  TLJ was retained by an insurance client to pursue an appeal of a $4.6 million verdict for alleged bad faith.  On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, TLJ succeeded in obtaining a new trial for the client with the Tenth Circuit expressly condemning plaintiffs' improper use of "sham evidence" and providing a strong indication that the damages awarded at the first trial were excessive.

TIG Specialty Insurance Co. v. Koken, 855 A.2d 900 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004), aff'd, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 3206 (Pa., Dec. 30, 2005).  In an action arising from the multi-million dollar failure of a Pennsylvania-based health maintenance organization, TLJ's insurer client denied coverage, based upon an insured versus insured exclusion, for claims against the HMO's former directors and officers that were made by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner in her capacity as liquidator of the HMO.  The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, in a per curiam opinion that was later affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, held that the exclusion unambiguously excluded coverage for the claims in question and rejected the directors' and officers' claims for breach of contract and bad faith.

Greenwich Insurance Co. v. LecStar Corporation, et al., No. 1:05-CV-3275-RLV (N.D. Ga. 2006).  TLJ won judgment on the pleadings for its client in a D&O insurance coverage matter.  Judgment was awarded based on application of an insured versus insured exclusion to a suit in which one of the named plaintiffs was a former vice president of the insured company.

Ameridebt, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance Co., et al., No. 8:04-CV-1375 (D. Md. 2005).  TLJ prevailed on motion to dismiss extracontractual claims against defendant insurers as a matter of law.

Ohio Hospital Insurance Co. v. CNA Financial Corporation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9864 (N.D. Ohio May 24, 2005).  TLJ successfully defended an insurer against claims for contribution for a settlement under which the insured did not have a "legal obligation to pay."

Dover Downs, Inc. v. TIG Insurance Company, No. 04-199-SLR, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16365 (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2004).  TLJ prevailed in a declaratory judgment action in which an operator of a horse track sought coverage under a general liability policy in connection with an underlying civil rights lawsuit in which the track had been accused of improperly denying racing privileges to three individuals.  TLJ argued, on a motion to dismiss, that the civil rights lawsuit did not trigger coverage under the policy’s property damage or personal injury insuring provisions.  The United States District Court for the District of Delaware agreed and granted the motion to dismiss on this basis. 

Pro Bono Social Security Disability Hearing, (2006).  TLJ represented pro bono a 59 year widower in a hearing before the Social Security Administration.  Our client had suffered from chronic and debilitating pain in his back and lower extremities for over ten years.  The claimant had been seeking disability benefits since 2003 and had been rejected twice by the SSA.  TLJ worked closely with our client, his family and medical doctors to present evidence to the administrative law judge that our client’s aliments prevented him from working and entitled him to benefits.  Our client received a fully favorable determination from the administrate law judge at the hearing, allowing our client to finally receive the benefits to which he was entitled.  

Representative Cases Handled By Present TLJ Lawyers While With Prior Firms

International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Wyoming Coal Refining Systems, 52 F.3d 901 (10th Cir. 1995).  Pete Thompson was among the lawyers who represented an insurer that had issued a $1 million policy to a research institute affiliated with the University of Wyoming.  After the insurer denied coverage for a commercial dispute involving an experimental coal refining process, the insured and the underlying plaintiffs entered into a consent judgment that purported to assess damages of $750 million against the insured, and then set out to pursue the insurer, on the basis of alleged “bad faith,” for the entire judgment amount.  After obtaining summary judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, Mr. Thompson presented oral argument on behalf of the insurer in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, obtaining a unanimous affirmance of the lower court ruling.

Perot v. Federal Election Commission, 97 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1996).  In a case that was briefed, argued, and decided in the space of three days, Lew Loss represented the Commission on Presidential Debates in responding to an attempt by certain third-party candidates to enjoin the commencement of the 1996 presidential and vice-presidential debates.  Ruling just two days before the first scheduled debate, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that had denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, thus allowing the debates to go forward as scheduled.  

National Black Police Association v. District of Columbia  Board of Elections and Ethics, 168 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1999).  Tom Judge successfully represented civil rights plaintiffs on appeal of an award of attorneys' fees.  The affirmance on appeal set precedent regarding the effect of subsequent mootness on a prevailing civil rights party's entitlement to an award of fees.
    
United States v. Stonehill, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18797 (9th Cir. 2002).  Pete Thompson was among the lawyers who represented two elderly American citizens who sought to set aside a decades-old multi-million dollar tax judgment against them.  The basis for their claim was that the United States had engaged in a fraud on the court in concealing evidence of American government involvement in certain illegal document seizures that occurred in the Philippines in 1962.  Mr. Thompson presented oral argument in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and succeeded in persuading the court to reopen the long-concluded case, obtaining a crucial order that unanimously remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California with directions that the court assist the taxpayers in uncovering "all relevant evidence" concerning the true facts of the 1962 raids and American participation therein.

Grissom v. The Mills Corporation, 549 F.3d 313 (2008).  A former Vice President of The Mills Corporation ("Mills") filed this action under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX"), claiming that his employment was terminated in retaliation for raising concerns that the company under-reported the projected cost of a major redevelopment project.  The lawsuit also included claims for defamation and breach of contract.  Approximately two months into discovery, the company made an offer of judgment in the amount of $130,000 pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The plaintiff accepted the offer and filed a petition seeking an additional $447,232.11 in attorneys' fees and costs.  In response to the plaintiff's petition for fees and costs, the district court awarded the plaintiff $325,484.08.  Mills appealed, seeking to set aside the award of fees and costs in its entirety or, in the alternative, reduce substantially the amount awarded to the plaintiff.  Led by Stephen Stern, Mills prevailed on appeal, as the Fourth Circuit vacated the award of fees and costs and remanded the case with specific instructions to the district court on how to calculate the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded.  Mills later settled the fee dispute with the plaintiff for an amount that was substantially lower than the district court awarded.

Stokes v. Cross, No. 04-5289, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 686 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 13, 2005).  A security officer at the Government Printing Office claimed that several of his fellow officers conspired to falsely accuse him of poor performance and defame him.  The United States Government retained separate counsel for each of the individual defendants and Stephen Stern was one of the attorneys who represented two of the individual officers.  The D.C. Circuit in a per curiam opinion affirmed the district court's decision, which dismissed the case against the individual security officers and substituted the United States as the appropriate defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act based on the court's conclusion that the individual security officers were acting within the scope of their employment when they investigated the plaintiff's conduct.

Estate of Anthony Bombolis, et al.  v. Continental Casualty Co., 740 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).  Tom Judge successfully defended a professional liability insurer from claims arising out of an attorney's misappropriation of client funds.  Summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, held that an insured attorney's guilty plea triggered the policy's dishonesty exclusion and resulted in a lack of coverage for the insured law firm as well as the guilty attorney.

Snowder v. District of Columbia, 949 A.2d 590 (D.C. 2008).  Multiple plaintiffs filed a purported class action under various legal theories - breach of bailment, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA") - seeking to recover damages for towing and storage fees they allegedly incurred.  In connection with their claims, the plaintiffs alleged that they did not receive adequate notice or give consent when their automobiles were impounded.  The superior court denied class certification and entered summary judgment for the defendants - the District of Columbia and various towing operators - on all claims.  As to the towing operator the TLJ attorneys represented (Perry's Towing and Storage, Inc.), the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's denial of class certification and it affirmed the dismissal of all the tort claims on the ground that the lone plaintiff who had any dealings with Perry's Towing did not have standing to sue.  Although the D.C. Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff had standing to bring a CPPA claim against Perry's Towing and remanded the case to the superior court to consider the plaintiffs' remaining claims, the appellate court agreed with the superior court in concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the towing operators had a duty to notify vehicle owners that their cars had been towed.  Jeffrey Ward was lead counsel for Perry's Towing before the superior court and Stephen Stern was lead counsel for Perry's Towing before the court of appeals.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Sheldon H. Braiterman, P.A., et al., No. CCB-97-828 (D. Md. 1997).  Tom Judge represented an insurer in a rescission action against a lawyer and his firm.  The court awarded summary judgment finding that the insured was aware of potential claims before the claims made policy incepted and that such information was material as a matter of law.

Blackman v. Hebrew Home of Greater Washington, No. PJM96-1174 (D. Md. 1997).  Tom Judge successfully defended a local nursing home against discrimination claims, prevailing on summary judgment.

Connolly v. The Mills Corporation, No. 1:06CV179 (E.D. Va. 2006).  A former Group Vice President of The Mills Corporation ("Mills") filed this action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").  Specifically, he claimed that Mills terminated his employment based on his age.  Stephen Stern was Mills' lead counsel and, after a one-week trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (a.k.a. the "Rocket Docket"), the jury returned a verdict in Mills' favor.  In ruling for Mills, the jury rejected Connolly's allegations that Mills discriminated against him by terminating his employment at the age of 64.

Aronson v. Powell, No. 03-C-97-005959 OT (Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Md. 1998). Tom Judge obtained summary judgment for a professional liability carrier where alleged wrongful acts against an insured attorney pre-dated the policy's retroactive coverage.