Focus. Determination. Strategy. Results.
The Ruberry Group has been at the forefront of advising and representing professional liability insurers in matters all across the country. We have litigated a wide spectrum of coverage issues which arise under professional liability policies, including: trigger of claims- made/claims-made-and-reported policies; application of prior-knowledge and prior-notice provisions; prior-loss issues; application of the definition of a “wrongful act,” recission based upon prior knowledge of wrongful acts; application of related acts provisions; and the “illegal profits” exclusion.
Our experience in these areas allows our attorneys to utilize targeted discovery designed to obtain information directly relevant to the coverage issue. This strategy has allowed us to successfully move for summary judgment on numerous occasions and, thus, resolve the coverage issues in favor of the carrier in a cost-effective manner. In matters where the coverage determination depends upon resolution of factual questions, our trial team has extensive experience in posturing these issues before a judge or jury in order to obtain a successful resolution for our clients. Our attorneys are equally adept at providing opinions with respect to insurers’ coverage obligations under professional liability policies.
We have also represented insured professional organizations against liability claims. We recognize the importance of a professional’s reputation and the potential adverse impact that even baseless litigation can have. We work closely with our professional clients to dispel the common misperception that professionals are absolute guarantors of good results. Our clientele includes: accountants, actuaries, agents, appraisers, architects, attorneys, bankers, brokers, directors, engineers and officers.
Together, we have developed successful strategies to persuade juries to evaluate professional conduct by more reasonable standards. Moreover, our group is at the forefront of advocating novel theories on behalf of professional defendants, including extending the Economic Loss Doctrine as a defense to tort claims and limiting the basis for, and extent of, punitive damages awards.
Representing Public and Governmental Entities
We have extensive experience representing, advising and defending public and governmental entities in a variety of legal matters. Specifically, our attorneys have represented cities, townships, municipalities, police departments, school districts and public bodies in the defense of bodily injury and property damage claims at all levels of litigation for minor to high exposure matters. Our representation has included the defense of public liability claims, class actions, intentional conduct, discrimination, negligent hiring, excessive force and civil rights causes of action. Our practice is not limited to the entities themselves, as we
frequently represent directors, officers and elected officials.
The Ruberry Group also has extensive experience representing both public entities and insurance companies in connection with coverage related issues. Recognizing that many public entities are subject to self- insured retentions, our representation is client-specific and tailor made to fit our clients’ needs. Our firm typically handles coverage for claims involving a variety of insurance policies, including Commercial General Liability, Commercial Auto, Directors and Officers (“D&O”), Errors and Omissions (“E&O”), Municipality and Intergovernmental Coverage Documents.
See box on right for noteworthy Public Entity victories
Echeverry v. Broward Sherriff’s
Office. State Court, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The Ruberry Group represented TIG Insurance Company in connection with the settlement of a strip search class action lawsuit. Our involvement enabled TIG to significantly reduce its potential exposure as an excess carrier by leveraging certain coverage issues
Petraski v. Thedos. State Court, Chicago, Illinois. The Ruberry Group successfully represented the Sheriff of Cook County and a Sheriff’s Officer in a lawsuit involving a woman who was rendered a quadriplegic after her vehicle collided with the officer’s vehicle, who was responding to an emergency call. After a three week trial, the jury returned a Not Guilty
in favor of the defense.