John M. Drath, Esq.

Mediator  •  Arbitrator



  • Plaintiff is a cannabis company that was broken into during the riots following the George Floyd incident. Rioters went into the building on two separate occasions that night, breaking into and taking product from two separate vaults. The insurance company claimed this constituted only one occurrence and paid out the limit for an occurrence. The plaintiff contended that there were two occurrences and that it was entitled to a second policy limit. Also, the plaintiff's agent suggested reducing the limits of his business interruption coverage to lower the premium but neglected to point out and discuss the possible application of a 90% coinsurance clause. The plaintiff's net incoming increased significantly during the pandemic and the co-insurance penalty reduced the recoverable business income loss by 50%. Both the insurance company and the agent were sued. The company got out on summary judgment, which has been appealed.

  • Bad faith action based on refusal to defend, resulting verdict in excess of 2.0 million. Assault and battery exclusion at issue.

  • Insurance agent failed to properly describe property on liability policy resulting in no coverage for a claim arising from the use of that property. Following a multi-million-dollar settlement, agent sued for professional liability.

  • Bad faith action based on insured’s claimed failure to pay an uninsured motorist claim in a timely fashion.

  • First party bad faith claim based on claimed mishandling of insured’s fire loss.

  • Bad faith claim based on failure to defend and resulting seven figure judgment. Personal injury and advertising liability coverage was in issue.

  • First party bad faith claim based on insurer’s disagreement over the damage to high value artwork.

  • Action against health benefits claims administrator for approving and paying out of the insured’s account 350K plus in claims not covered by the employer’s group health policy, thus preventing the insured from getting reimbursed by the insurer.

  • Action and cross-action regarding the effectiveness of the cancelation of a worker’s compensation policy, and resolution of the worker’s compensation case that arose after the alleged cancelation.

  • Action against insurance company and two producing agents over the interpretation of additional insured endorsement and its application to a suit against a retailer sued for products liability.