Lawyers

Related Case Studies

Print to PDF Print to PDF

Andrew L. Margulis - Representative Experience

  • Issues
  • Venue
  • Client Type
  • Practice Areas
  • Full Description
  • Result
  • Breach of Contract; Judgment; Execution
  • New York Supreme Court, County of New York
  • Plaintiff Real Estate Developer
  • Business And Commercial Litigation
  • The plaintiff, a residential real estate developer, hired the defendant to fabricate, furnish and install granite kitchen counter-tops in a residential building project the plaintiff was developing. The defendant accepted the plaintiff's payments of over $50,000, but failed to render the appropriate services. The plaintiff then filed suit alleging breach of contract.

  • After failing to abide by multiple discovery orders, the court struck the defendant’s answer and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. After an inquest before the court, whereat plaintiff was able to substantiate its damages, the court entered a final judgment in plaintiff's favor in the amount of approximately $62,000. We were able to successfully execute on such judgment and recover a substantial amount of the $62,000 for our client.

  • Legal Malpractice Defense
  • New York State Supreme Court, Queens County
  • Defendant Law Firm
  • LawyersProfessional Liability
  • Defended a law firm that represented the plaintiff in an underlying medical malpractice action. The trial resulted in a defense verdict and the client sued the law firm for malpractice.

     

     

     

  • At the close of evidence on the plaintiff’s case and after the plaintiff rested, we moved for a directed verdict dismissing the action. The court granted the motion and directed a verdict in favor of our client, the defendant law firm.

  • Directors and Officers; Professional Liability; Fidelity
  • Arbitration--JAMS
  • Defendant Insurance Provider
  • Business And Commercial LitigationCoverageDirector/Officer Liability (including Non-Profits)Fidelity & SuretyInsurance Services
  • Represented an insurer in a coverage matter under a blended policy providing directors/officers, professional liability and fidelity coverage issued to a leading insurance company. The insured sought coverage in connection with claims arising out of one of the largest insurance/bond frauds perpetrated by an officer of the insured's subsidiary. Holders of the bonds with values in excess of $120 million sought payment on the bonds. Coverage was denied and the parties submitted the matter to binding arbitration.

     

  • The matter was ultimately resolved after approximately five years of litigation on terms favorable to the insurer.

  • Professional Liability; Coverage; Bad Faith
  • USDC: Middle District of Pennsylvania
  • Defendant Insurance Provider
  • Bad FaithCoverageInsurance Services
  • Represented the defendant insurance provider in an insurance coverage and bad faith suit arising out of the denial of coverage under a professional liability life agent and securities broker/dealer policy. Insured was a securities registered representative involved in providing investment recommendations and the sale of investment products to clients. The insured opened his own business with a long time client and the client invested funds to get the business started. After a dispute between the partners, the insured's business partner filed an NASD arbitration against the insured alleging that the insured was negligent in advising the client to invest in the insured's business. The insurer denied coverage as the claim did not allege any covered professional services since the investment was in the insured's own business and not in any securities or products approved by the insured's broker/dealer. The insured brought suit to obtain coverage and to recover for the alleged bad faith denial by the insurer.


     

     

  • Obtained summary judgment dismissing the claims for coverage and bad faith. The court held that no coverage existed and that the denial of coverage was proper, and that the insurer acted reasonably in denying coverage so that no claim for bad faith was supported. The case is reported at 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45251 (N.D. Oh. 2008). The case was appealed by the insured and the dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, reported at 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16174 (6th Cir. 2009).

  • Professional Liability; Coverage; Bad Faith
  • USDC: Middle District of Florida
  • Defendant Insurance Provider
  • Bad FaithCoverageInsurance Services
  • Defended an insurance provider in a suit involving insurance coverage and bad faith arising out of the denial of coverage under a professional liability life agent and securities broker/dealer policy. The insured was involved in selling coverage under national group health insurance plans that were purported to be qualified ERISA plans, but were actually multiple employer welfare plans. The plans ultimately became insolvent and were unable to pay submitted claims. Three separate underlying actions were filed against the insured by clients whose medical claims were unpaid. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds that the claims were excluded by two exclusions, one that barred coverage for claims involving multiple employer welfare plans and another that barred coverage for claims arising out of the insolvency of any benefit plan or company in which the client's coverage was placed. The insured brought suit to obtain coverage and to recover for the alleged bad faith denial of the insurer.

     

  • Obtained summary judgment dismissing the claims for coverage and bad faith. The court held that no coverage existed and that the denial of coverage was proper, and that the insurer acted reasonably in denying coverage so that no claim for bad faith was supported. The case is reported at 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39171 (M.D. Fla. 2008).

  • Sexual Harassment, Retaliatory Termination
  • JAMS--Arbitration (New York)
  • Global Technology Company
  • Employment Litigation and Dispute Resolution
  • Defended a global technology company in binding arbitration against claims of sexual harassment and retaliatory termination alleged against both the company and a vice president by a former senior employee.

     

  • After full evidentiary hearings over several days, we obtained an award in favor of both the company and the vice president dismissing all claims in their entirety.

  • Retaliation; Failure to Timely Pay Wages and Bonuses; California Labor Code
  • JAMS--Arbitration (Boston)
  • Defendant Global Technology Company
  • Employment Litigation and Dispute Resolution
  • Defended a global technology company against claims of both retaliation and failure to timely pay wages and bonuses brought by a former senior vice president.  The claims sought payment not only of additional compensation and bonuses, but penalties under California Labor Code.  The claims were first filed in court and were later submitted to binding arbitration, and were brought against both the company and senior executives of the company.

     


     

  • After obtaining dismissal of the claims in their entirety as to the senior executives, we successfully defended the company from all claims of retaliation and failure to pay wages and penalties. We also obtained an award limiting the bonus payable to amounts consistent with the company’s bonus policy, and awarding no additional compensation or interest.

  • Professional Liability; Coverage; Bad Faith
  • USDC: Northern District of Ohio; US Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
  • Defendant Insurance Provider
  • Bad FaithCoverageInsurance Services
  • Represented the defendant insurance provider in an insurance coverage and bad faith suit arising out of the denial of coverage under a professional life agent and securities broker/dealer policy. The insured was a securities registered representative involved in providing investment recommendations and the sale of investment products to clients. The insured was sued by a client whose investment in an offshore asset protection trust was lost when funds were invested in an investment management business which ultimately filed for bankruptcy. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds that the policy only provided coverage for specified professional services, which services did not include investment activities in connection with unregistered offshore investments or products that were not approved by the broker/dealer. Coverage was also denied pursuant to an exclusion that barred coverage for claims arising out of insolvency of any company in which the client's funds were placed. The plaintiff insured brought suit to obtain coverage and to recover for the alleged bad faith denial of the insurer.

     

  • Obtained summary judgment dismissing the claims for coverage and bad faith. The court held that no coverage existed and that the denial of coverage was proper, and that the insurer acted reasonably in denying coverage so that no claim for bad faith was supported. The case is reported at 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76818 (M.D. Pa. 2008). The case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and decision is pending.
     

  • Discrimination, EEOC
  • EEOC
  • Defendant Leading Technology Company
  • Employment Litigation and Dispute Resolution
  • Represented a leading technology company against claims of discrimination and retaliation filed with the EEOC.  We participated in the investigation conducted by the EEOC, including submission of all relevant evidence and interviews.
     
     

  • Obtained a finding from the EEOC that there was no evidence of any violation and the charges of discrimination and retaliation were dismissed.

  • Enron; Initial Public Offering
  • Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland
  • Defendant Insurance Company
  • CoverageDirector/Officer Liability (including Non-Profits)Insurance ServicesProfessional Liability
  • In 2008, an international investment bank filed suit against numerous insurance companies in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Maryland , including our client, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to over $500 million of insurance coverage for defense costs and settlement proceeds incurred in connection with numerous underlying litigations in the following claims: (1) Exchange Fund claims; (2) Enron claims; (3) Tax claims; (4) Boston Chicken claims; and (5) Initial Public Offering claims. In connection with each “group” of claims, the bank asserted the following three causes of action against the insurer defendants: (1) breach of fiduciary duty to pay defense costs; (2) breach of duty to pay settlements; and (3) declaratory relief regarding defendants’ duty to pay losses. Our client subscribed to an excess layer multi-line blended Financial Institution Professional Indemnity insurance policy issued to an insured that was later acquired by the investment bank.

  • After several years of litigation, the parties agreed to mediate the dispute two weeks before trial was scheduled to begin. During that mediation, the parties agreed to a negotiated confidential settlement that resulted in our client saving over 90% of its available limits of liability.

  • Coverage
  • Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
  • Non-Party Insurance Syndicate
  • Directors & OfficersInsurance ServicesOther ProfessionalsProfessional Liability
  • Frank Selna, an employee of the insured, devised a Ponzi scheme to defraud over 25 investors out of millions of dollars by recommending that they invest in fictitious investment vehicles. These investors filed suit against a number of defendants, including the insured, alleging various causes of action including fraud, conversion and negligent misrepresentation. Based on our review of the allegations in the complaint, we recommended that the client issue a comprehensive reservation of rights letter to the insured noting that Insuring Agreement A - Fidelity, of the applicable policy, was potentially implicated. The reservation of rights letter also stated that certain exclusions were applicable that would limit the amount of Loss subject to coverage.

  • On behalf of the insurer and in a coordinated effort with the insured, we participated in a mediation in which a "global" settlement between the parties was effectuated and also successfully saved the client over 80% of the available limits of liability.

  • Attorney malpractice; patent
  • US District Court, Eastern District of NY
  • Third Party Defendant Law Firm/Lawyer
  • Intellectual PropertyLawyersProfessional Liability
  • Legal malpractice case arising out of a patent application.  Plaintiff invented a video game involving targeted in-game advertising and sought patent protection.  Patent application was prepared and filed. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant lawyers/law firm made errors in preparing the patent application and failed to follow through with prosecution of the patent application on a timely basis thereby forfeiting plaintiffs' patent rights in their invention.  Plaintiffs sought $150-200 Million as damages consisting of lost royalties and licensing opportunities for the patent they would have obtained.

  • After nearly a three week jury trial, we moved for a directed verdict following the defendants' case in chief.  Immediately prior to the court's ruling on our motion and before the case being delivered to the jury, the defendants withdrew their claims against our clients with no consideration or any amounts being paid to defendants on behalf of our clients.

  • Rescission; Professional Liability; Bad Faith
  • USDC: Northern District of California
  • Defendant Insurance Provider
  • Bad FaithCoverageInsurance Services
  • Defended an insurance provider in a case involving claims for coverage under a Professional Liability General Partnership issued to a real estate development company. Three separate claims were brought against the insured. One claim was brought by a former partner arising out of certain lost partnership opportunities. The second claim was brought by the founder of the company for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud arising out of a prior settlement between the parties. The third claim arose out of the insured's development of an apartment complex and involved the parties' interests in the property as well as claims that the project was negligently built. The insurer denied coverage for all three claims on various grounds, including as to the first two claims that they were brought by "insureds" and were excluded by the insured v. insured exclusion, and as to the third claim based on the property damage exclusion. During discovery, it was learned that the insured were aware of the potential claim by the former partner before the policy was issued, and the insurer brought a counterclaim for rescission of the policy based on material misrepresentations.

     

  • Obtained summary judgment granting the insurer's claim for rescission based on material misrepresentation and breach of warranty in the application based on the insured's failure to disclose the dispute with the former partner. The court also granted our motion for summary judgment on the coverage issues, holding that even if the policy were enforced, no coverage existed and the denial was proper. The bad faith claim was dismissed as well. The case is reported at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20562 (N.D. Cal. 2005).