Insurance Practices

Reger Rizzo & Darnall’s Insurance Practices Group has extensive experience defending insurance companies, self-insured corporations and third-party administrators against unsubstantiated claims. Our team of dedicated, aggressive, practical attorneys has a keen understanding of the complex rules and regulations governing the insurance industry and possess a proven track record of obtaining favorable results for our clients throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, and nationwide. 

Clients, both large and small, have come to rely on our Insurance Practices Group for comprehensive legal representation and valuable, sound counsel. Our attorneys represent major property and casualty insurers as well as smaller regional and specialty carriers. Our team of attorneys works with clients to establish defense strategies that achieve results and stay within a client’s anticipated financial expectations.

Our Services

Our Insurance Practices attorneys are able to handle the most complex insurance defense cases. Our team has substantial experience interpreting insurance policies and in rendering opinions on coverage, duty to defend, duty to indemnify and other insurance contract-related issues. We frequently work with insurers and their claims professionals in handling sensitive claims where coverage or bad faith issues may be implicated. 

We routinely assist clients in the following areas: 

  • Coverage and Bad Faith Actions
  • Commercial General Liability
  • Motor Vehicle/Uninsured Motorist
  • Excess/Reinsurance
  • Liquor Liability Claims
  • Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
  • Products Liability
  • Negligence
  • Errors & Omissions Liability
  • Directors & Officers Liability
  • Property and Casualty
  • Personal Injury
  • Professional Liability
  • Unfair trade practice
  • Construction Defect
  • Subrogation

Our Team

With offices in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Maryland, Reger Rizzo & Darnall’s team of insurance defense attorneys stand ready to represent insurers in both state and federal courts and in alternative dispute resolution forums. Strategically based in the Mid-Atlantic Region, our attorneys boast a reputation of successfully representing clients throughout the United States. 

Of particular note, Reger Rizzo & Darnall’s Insurance Practices Team features James Griffith, one of the few attorneys in the United States to have successfully tried a collective action to a jury, a distinction recognized in The National Law Journal’s 2006 Defense Hot List.

Representative Matters

  • Managing Partner, Louis Rizzo, argued before Delaware’ Supreme Court in a case of first impression regarding insurance coverage and the validity of the so-called “non-duplication” clause in insurance policies. The issue first arose following the Legislature’s amendment of Delaware’s Financial Responsibility Law several years ago. The amendment, designed to correct language in the statute relating to the trigger of coverage for UIM coverage, resulted in multiple suits throughout the state which contended that the “non-duplication” clause in policies was contrary to the statutory language as amended. The declaratory judgment action which Mr. Rizzo argued, consolidated with a similar coverage case for the appeal, sought reversal of a string of Superior Court cases which found the policy language to be void and unenforceable. A decision on the consolidated appeal is expected by the fall.
  • Obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action involving an insurance coverage dispute in Delaware. The case, which was a matter of first impression in Delaware, involved liability coverage under a homeowner’s policy for third party claims arising from a dog’s attack on a minor. The policy contained a coverage limitation which precluded coverage for such claims if the animal in question had a history of prior attacks which had been documented by reporting of the prior attacks to state or local agencies. The Court analyzed the policy language and concluded that it was clear and unambiguous. The Court went on to conclude that the limiting language was valid and enforceable, as it did not violate public policy concerns, based on the voluntary nature of the coverage at issue.
  • Obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action involving an insurance coverage dispute in Delaware. The case involved a claim for damage to structures on a residential property, including retaining walls and foot bridges. The damage was the result of severe flooding which led to erosion and damage from water-borne materials, both of which were clearly excluded causes of loss under the policy. The insureds had submitted an engineering report which acknowledged the damage had been caused by the erosion and water borne materials from the flooding, but also attributed the damage to the over-taxed drainage system for the home. The insured plaintiffs contended that coverage was available based on the contribution of the drainage system failure. The Court agreed with our argument that the anti-concurrent cause language in the policy controlled the coverage determination. Under that language, the fact that another, potentially-covered cause of the loss might have been identified, the exclusions for erosion and water borne materials nevertheless applied and controlled the claim. The Delaware Court followed Third Circuit caselaw on this issue and applied the anti-concurrent clause language, finding no coverage for the claim under the policy.  

Related Articles & Resources