Coverage Litigation

Richardson Law Group directly represents some of the nation's largest insurance carriers in matters involving coverage disputes and coverage investigation.  Our firm assists carriers in the pre-litigation stage with coverage disputes and policy interpretations.  Our attorneys attend national seminars and maintain subscriptions with the industry's leading publications so we can advise our carriers of the latest trends.  If litigation becomes necessary, Richardson Law Group projects the interests of our insurance carriers throughout the litigation process.  Whether guiding its carriers through a complex coverage determination or preparing an insurance company representative for deposition through mock cross-examination, our attorneys are hands-on working cooperatively with adjusters, in house counsel and investigators to insure our carriers' interests are protected.

Representative Matters

A mental health patient had a sexual relationship with her therapist and subsequently filed suit against her therapist and his employer.  In a separate action, Richardson Law Group secured a declaratory judgment that the employer's insurance policy did not extend coverage to the therapist's sexual relationships with his clients.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that there was no coverage for the therapist's acts.  Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. Ky. 2008).

A doctor employed by a mental health clinic prescribed antidepressants to a former patient and social acquaintance, after advising the former patient not to seek help at the clinic.  The former patient complied with the doctor's advice.  The patient subsequently committed suicide, and his estate brought suit against the doctor and the clinic.  In an action for declaratory judgment, Richardson Law Group successfully argued at the trial court that the clinic's insurance policy did not cover the doctor's treatment of a patient outside the scope of his employment with the clinic.  Walters' advocacy persuaded the appellate court to affirm on the basis that the doctor was not acting in furtherance of his employer's business when he advised the former patient to seek treatment elsewhere and due to the fact that the decedent never became a patient of the clinic.  Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Nat H. Sandler, 381 Fed. Appx. 554 (6th Cir. Ky. 2010).

Richardson Law Group represented an insurance carrier that had issued a policy to a community and technical college.  A student at the college was involved in a fatal accident driving home from school in a pickup truck that had been repaired at the college as part of a hands-on project. In finding the carrier had no obligation to provide coverage, because had no substantial control over the vehicle once it left campus; " and further held that “a reasonable person . . . would not say that [the college] had 'borrowed' the […] vehicle" at the time of the accident.  Westfield Ins. Co. v. Young, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158915, 7-8 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 6, 2012). 

Richardson Law Group successfully defended a first party declaratory judgment action upholding a denial of coverage where a homeowner’s adult son was allegedly manufacturing methamphetamine in the home which lead to a fire significantly damaging, and contaminating the residence.  The court found that the production of methamphetamine was on par with the production of moonshine and held that “the conduct of [the son] in producing methamphetamine within the plaintiff's residence increased the hazard that the residence would be destroyed by fire or explosion and was excluded by the Policy.” Robinson v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35028, 6-7 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 14, 2012).