Skip To The Main Content

Insurance and Reinsurance

Print This Page
Email This Page
Band 1
Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Insurer
Chambers USA
2007-2025
Department of the Year
Insurance Litigation
New York Law Journal
Finalist, 2025
Winner, 4 of the last 8 years 
Tier 1
Insurance: Advice to Insurers
The Legal 500 U.S.
2010-2025
“Simpson Thacher is the top coverage firm for insurers. The firm has excellent lawyers, it comes with credibility, and is widely respected throughout the country.”
– Chambers USA, quoting a client
Insurance Firm of the Year
2026, and 11 of the last 13 years – Benchmark Litigation

Simpson Thacher is consistently recognized as a leader in insurance and reinsurance litigation. With our demonstrated record of success, clients repeatedly turn to us for their most formidable disputes. Clients benefit from our experience as the leading firm representing the interests of both insurers and reinsurers in litigations and arbitrations throughout the United States, the United Kingdom and Bermuda.

Insurance groups, including AIG, AXA XL, Beazley, Brighthouse, Berkshire Hathaway, Chubb, CNA, Factory Mutual, Lloyd’s of London, Swiss Re, Travelers and Utica, have trusted us on their most significant disputes. We also are regularly retained by insurers and their boards of directors to advise, represent, defend and investigate business practice and regulatory issues, including in connection with shareholder lawsuits and proxy proposals; state and federal regulatory proceedings, including market conduct examinations; and government investigations.

“Simpson Thacher’s insurance practice group is among the best in the country. Their attorneys are supremely intelligent, hardworking, and regularly handle the most complex and high dollar insurance coverage claims in the nation.”
– The Legal 500 U.S., quoting a client

Select Representations

Strategic National and Interstate Counsel

When faced with significant book-wide disputes, insurers turn to Simpson Thacher to develop and employ national and interstate litigation strategy and coordinate with local counsel to ensure consistency and top-quality advocacy. We have recently helped insurers to successfully and efficiently litigate and resolve portfolios of claims related to COVID-19, the opioid epidemic, seizure of airplanes, privacy breaches, silica and tax liabilities.

  • Coordinated and litigated successful defense, including multiple appellate wins, against COVID‑19‑related property insurance and business interruption claims
    •
    • Sacramento Downtown Arena, LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29946 (9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025)
    • Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 224 Conn. App. 429 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)
    • San Jose Sharks, LLC v. Superior Court, 98 Cal. App. 5th 158 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
    • Abington Kids Creative Learning Ctr., Inc. v. Utica Nat’l Ins. Grp., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44733 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2023)
    • Happy Valley Rd. LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29615 (N.D. Ca. Feb. 22, 2023)
    • Lincoln Holdings LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105830 (D. D.C. Mar. 6, 2023)
    • George Wash. Univ. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 626 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D. D.C. 2022)
    • Mohegan Tribal Gaming Auth. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 Conn. Super. LEXIS 776 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 8, 2022)
    • Oakland Athletics Baseball Co., et al. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., et al., Case No. RG20079003 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.)
    • 20 TSQ Lessee LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. PC-2020-07841 (R.I. Sup. Ct.)
    • MEI-GSR Resort Holdings, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. PC-2020-02788 (R.I. Sup. Ct.)
    • Las Vegas Resort Holdings, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. PC-2021-02790 (R.I. Sup. Ct.)
    • Windsor Capital Resort Holdings LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. PC-2021-03252 (R.I. Sup. Ct.)
    • Plan Check Downtown III, LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., Case No. 2:20-cv-06954 (C.D. Cal.)
    • Coast Restaurant Group v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 30-2020-01153185-CU-IC-WJC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)
    • Goergio Cosani Menswear Inc., et al. v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., Case No. 2:22-cv-00881-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal.)
    • Happy Valley Road LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-06115-LB (N.D. Cal.)
    • Posh Café, Inc. v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., Case No. 2:20-cv-08037-FMO-PVC (C.D. Cal.)
    • Rowland Heights Medical Center, Inc. v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., Case No. 2:20-cv-07352 (C.D. Cal.)
    • West Coast Hotel Management, LLC, et al. v. Berkshire Hathaway Guard Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-05663-VAP-DFM (C.D. Cal.)
  • Counseled London market insurers in multi-forum complex aviation insurance litigation related to claims from aircraft owners alleging their aircraft became stranded in Russia
    •
    • Aviation Capital Group LLC v. Chubb European Group SE, Case No. 23STCV00680 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.)
    • Aircastle Ltd. v. Chubb European Group SE, Index No. 654131/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.)
    • Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. v. Chubb European Group SE, 654855/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.)
    • Voyager Aviation Holdings, LLC v. Chubb European Group SE, No. UWYCV246082017S (Conn. Super. Ct.)
  • Represented London market insurers in coverage litigation relating to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
    •
    • Viasat, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Syndicate 2623, Case No. 3:22-CV-1169 JAH BGS (C.D. Cal.)
    • Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Syndicates 2653 and 623 v. Viasat, Inc., Case No. 37-2022-00035096-CU-IC-NC (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego Cty.).
  • Represented liability insurer in numerous coverage litigations concerning underlying tort claims alleging injury from exposure to silica
    •
    • C & C North America, Inc. d/b/a Cosentino North America v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 24STCV18642 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.)
    • Arizona Tile, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, et al., Case No. 25STCV02521 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.)
    • Surface Warehouse, LP v. The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03895 MRA (MAAx) (C.D. Cal)
    • Pacific Shore Stones, LLC, et al. v. Allied Property & Casualty, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04370 MRA (MAAx) (C.D. Cal.)
    • Regent Insurance Company, et al. v. Cambria Enterprises, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04142 MRA (MAAx) (C.D. Cal.)
  • Coordinated nationwide litigation of coverage disputes relating to prescription opioid liabilities, including winning summary judgment in multiple state and federal jurisdictions
    •
    • In re CVS Opioid Ins. Litig., 346 A.3d 81 (Del. 2025)
    • Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195956 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2024)
    • Meijer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 22-10542 (Mich. Jud. Cir. Ct., Kent Cty.)
    • Mattew Dundon, as Trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust. ACE Propery and Casualty Insurance Company, 24-4221 (E.D. Pa.)
    • Harris Teeter Supermarkets Inc. v. Ace America Insurance Company, 22-cv-005279 (N.C. Super. Ct., Forsyth Cty.)
    • Ace American Insurance Company v. The Kroger Company, 2203712 (Ohio Ct. C.P., Hamilton Cty.)
    • ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Rite Aid Corp., 270 A.3d 239 (Del. 2022)
  • Advised cyber carrier in developing and implementing overarching dispute resolution and litigation strategy
  • Represented general liability carrier and coordinated with local counsel in strategic litigation and resolution of child victims act claims
  • Provided strategic counsel to insurer on significant portfolio of tax liability insurance disputes
Show more
Complex Coverage Disputes
Simpson Thacher has a proven track record of success for insurers in their most challenging and significant coverage disputes, winning precedent-defining judgments across state and federal courts.
  • State Supreme Court victory against lead paint manufacturer’s claims for insurance coverage for public nuisance lawsuits
    •
    • Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 178 Ohio St. 3d 424 (Ohio 2024)
  • $2.2 billion summary judgment victory in talc-related coverage litigation
    •
    • Atlanta Int’l Ins. Co. As Successor in Int. to Drake Ins. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3302 (N.J. Super. Dec. 18, 2023)
  • Won dismissal in trial court and appellate affirmance for cyber carrier in defense against claims seeking coverage for alleged biometric privacy violations
    •
    • Remprex, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2023 IL App (1st) 211097. 
  • Won summary judgment in coverage dispute for cyber carrier relating to consumer protection act violations
    •
    • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Convergys Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110615 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
  • Won 11 summary judgment rulings in a matter involving multi-site pollution
    •
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172840 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2022)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177555 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2021)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 413 F. Supp. 3d 224 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 24, 2019)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 413 F. Supp. 3d 263 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 20, 2019)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 677 Fed. Appx. 701 (2d Cir. Jan. 27, 2017)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 4 F. Supp. 3d 599 (S.D.N.Y March 13, 2014)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 3 F. Supp. 3d 79 (S.D.N.Y 2014)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2014 WL 923211 (S.D.N.Y March 6, 2014)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 2013 WL 12325152 (S.D.N.Y November 4, 2013)
    • Travelers Indem. Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 956 F. Supp. 2d 494 (S.D.N.Y 2013)
  • Multiple summary judgment wins in coverage suits relating to opioid lawsuits
    •
    • In re CVS Opioid Ins. Litig., 346 A.3d 81 (Del. 2025)
    • Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195956 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2024)
    • Mattew Dundon, as Trustee of the Endo General Unsecured Creditors’ Trust. ACE Propery and Casualty Insurance Company, 24-4221 (E.D. Pa.)
    • Harris Teeter Supermarkets Inc. v. Ace America Insurance Company, 22-cv-005279 (N.C. Super. Ct., Forsyth Cty.)
    • Ace American Insurance Company v. The Kroger Company, 2203712 (Ohio Ct. C.P., Hamilton Cty.)
    • ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Rite Aid Corp., 270 A.3d 239 (Del. 2022)
  • Won an interstate forum fight and achieved successful resolution for cyber carrier in business interruption claim relating to ransomware attack
    •
    • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., 656633/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., Comm. Div.)
    • Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019-CH-14759 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.)
  • Defended carrier exclusion against coverage and unfair trade practices claim relating to hundreds of millions in storm damage
    •
    • Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, 2023-cv-00114 (W.D. Tex. 2023)
  • Defended insurance carriers in multiple jurisdictions against claims for coverage for liabilities from PFAS “forever chemicals”
    •
    • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al. v. BASF Corp., et al., No. 651150/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.)
    • BASF Corp. v. ACE American Insurance Company, et al., No. MID-L-001648-24 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.)
    • Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Am. Ins. Co. et al., No. 1:19-cv-10 (W.D. Mich.)
  • Represented insurer in connection with University of Southern California’s suit seeking coverage for sexual abuse claims
    •
    • University of Southern California v. ACE American Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01921-DDP (ASx) (C.D. Cal.)
  • Represented liability insurer in numerous coverage litigations concerning underlying tort claims alleging injury from exposure to silica
    •
    • C & C North America, Inc. d/b/a Cosentino North America v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 24STCV18642 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.)
    • Arizona Tile, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, et al., Case No. 25STCV02521 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.)
    • Surface Warehouse, LP v. The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03895 MRA (MAAx) (C.D. Cal.)
    • Pacific Shore Stones, LLC, et al. v. Allied Property & Casualty, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04370 MRA (MAAx) (C.D. Cal.)
    • Regent Insurance Company, et al. v. Cambria Enterprises, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04142 MRA (MAAx) (C.D. Cal.)
  • Represented London market insurers in coverage litigation involving aircraft leased to Indonesia’s national airline
    •
    • Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company, et al. v. Chubb European Group S.E., et al., Index No. 654784/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.)
  • Defended insurer against and negotiated resolution of coverage dispute arising from asbestos-related personal injury claims against manufacturing company
    •
    • The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., et al., No. 13-256 (W.D. Pa.)
  • Represented insurers in coverage litigation with Olin Corporation over asbestos- and pollution-related claims
    •
    • Olin Corp. v. Lamorak Ins. Co., Case No. 84-cv-1968 (JSR)
Show more
Reinsurance Disputes and Arbitrations
Simpson Thacher is retained by cedents and reinsurers in complex disputes and arbitrations relating to coverage, trust sufficiency and asset adequacy, limits and occurrences, underwriting and claims settlements.  
United Kingdom Arbitration Practice
From its London office and worldwide, Simpson Thacher advises and represents carriers in high-stakes English law disputes and arbitrations. 
  • Litigated to final award under all major arbitration systems, including UNCITRAL, ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, HKIAC, JAMS, SCC and jurisdictions worldwide, including London, Paris, Stockholm, New York, Miami, Houston, São Paulo, Hong Kong and Singapore
  • Represented English reinsurers in English law arbitration relating to mass flooding event
  • Advised London reinsurer in respect of a business interruption reinsurance arbitration arising out of events cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Advised insurer in number of occurrence disputes relating to mass disaster in South America
Show more
Bad Faith RICO and Extracontractual Claim Defense
The insurance market turns to Simpson Thacher when faced with high-stakes bad faith, antitrust and extracontractual claims.
  • Won motion to dismiss RICO and negligence claims arising out insurance commissions 
    •
    • Spagnuolo v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225138 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2024)
  • Defended against bad faith claims arising from the largest individual medical malpractice verdict in U.S. history
    •
    • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Syndicates 623/2623 v. NuMale Albuquerque LLC, et al., No. D-905-CV02025-00157 (N.M. Sup. Ct.)
    • In re NuMale Corp., No. 25-10341 (Bankr. D. Nev.)
  • Won motion to dismiss Illinois statutory bad faith claim against cyber carrier relating to coverage denial and alleging fraudulent misconduct
    •
    • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 19615 (N.Y. Comm. Div. June 30, 2020)
  • Secured dismissal on appeal of policyholder claims against insurer and claims agent, including tortious interference and Massachusetts consumer protection claims
    •
    • OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 123 A.D.3d 222 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t 2014)
  • Representing insurer in a consumer action alleging California law violations for providing inaccurate reconstruction cost estimates to policyholders affected by the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, including bad faith claims for alleged misuse of an estimator program
    •
    • Layton, et al. v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07216 GW (JCx) (C.D. Cal.)
  • Representing insurers in multiple lawsuits concerning alleged smoke damage from the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, all asserting bad faith in the claims process
    •
    • Canzoneri, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., Case No. 25STCV11838 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Ferrier, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., Case No. 25STCV12117 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Barak, et al. v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV10670 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Singh, et al. v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV11478 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Smith, et al. v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV12265 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Cazares v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV13101 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Jungwirth v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV13782 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Hutchinson v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV16444 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
  • Defended insurers in nationwide litigation challenging business practices
    •
    • OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 123 A.D.3d 222 (1st Dep’t 2014)
    • Ashland Inc. and Hercules Incorporated v. National Indemnity Company and Resolute Management Inc., Civ. A. No. 12-CI-4638, (Ky. Cir. Ct.)
  • Defended insurer against class action complaint alleging third-party bad faith claims stemming from asbestos-related tort litigation in Libby, Montana
    •
    • Coleman, et al. v. National Indemnity Co., No. 25-4982 (9th Cir.)
  • Won dismissal in trial court and on appeal of claims against cyber carrier alleging fraud, bad faith, and violations of consumer protection statute
    •
    • Remprex, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2023 IL App (1st) 21109
  • Secured dismissals in multiple jurisdictions, including appellate affirmance of False Claims Act and Medicare fraud claims on behalf of dozens of insurers
    •
    • United States ex rel. Michigan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1086 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025)
    • MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129602 (D. Conn. July 6, 2023)
    • MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 341 F.R.D. 636 (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Show more
Strategic Appeals
Simpson Thacher is retained for high stakes appeals and has set favorable precedent in state and federal courts across the country, including in coverage disputes relating to COVID-19, the opioid epidemic, cyber events, exclusions and antitrust and extracontractual claims. 
Show more
Bankruptcy and Receivership
Simpson Thacher strategically utilizes and participates in bankruptcy and receivership proceedings to safeguard its insurer clients’ interests vis-à-vis policyholders, tort claimants and receivers. 
  • Represented insurer in defeat of $9 billion Chapter 11 plan on grounds including that it prejudiced insurers’ contractual rights under pre-petition policies
    •
    • In re Red River Talc LLC, 670 B.R. 251 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2025)
  • Successfully blocked an asbestos bankruptcy reorganization on behalf of an insurer, achieving a historic first by objecting to a Chapter 11 plan influenced by plaintiffs’ attorneys and deemed unfair, setting an important precedent in mass tort bankruptcies
    •
    • In re ACandS, Inc. Cas No. 16-1126 (Bank. D. Del 2004)
  • Represented insurers in multi-jurisdictional bankruptcy and on U.S. recognition on behalf of insurers of foreign bankruptcy proceedings
    •
    • In re Asbestos Corp., 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 2795 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2025)
  • Successfully secured Delaware Chancery court order limiting power of receiver of dissolved policyholder and terminating coverage litigation brought by receiver
    •
    • In re Fletcher Construction Company of North America, No. 2023-1038 (Del. Chancery).
  • Represented insurer in asserting objections to multi-billion mass tort bankruptcy plans concerning talc-related personal injury claims
    •
    • In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc. et al., No. 19-10289 (Banrk. D. Del.)
    • In re: Cyprus Mines Corp., No. 21-10398 (Bankr. D. Del.)
  • Represented insurers in objecting to bankruptcy proceedings by opioid manufacturers and retailers and defending against coverage claims in related adversary proceedings
    •
    • In re: Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 19-23649 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)
    • In re: Rite Aid Corp., No. 21-18993 (Bankr. D.N.J.)
  • Represented insurance carrier in Chapter 11 proceedings and associated claims of coverage for sexual abuse claims, including in Third Circuit appeal
    • In re: Boy Scouts of America and Delaware BSA, LLC, No. 20-10343 (Bankr. D. Del.)
  • Defended against bad faith claims arising from the largest individual medical malpractice verdict in U.S. history, and successfully resolved the dispute through the insured’s bankruptcy proceedings
    •
    • In re NuMale Corp., No. 25-10341 (Bank. Nevada)
Show more
Class Action Defense
Collaborating across Simpson Thacher’s litigation practice groups, we successfully defend insurers facing putative securities, antitrust and products claims.  
  • Representing insurer in class action and 60-plaintiff antitrust lawsuits alleging that the insurers who collectively yield 80% market power in the California homeowners fire insurance market conspired to eliminate homeowner fire coverage in targeted segments of the market in California
    •
    • Canzoneri, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., Case No. 25STCV11838 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Ferrier, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., Case No. 25STCV12117 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Barak, et al. v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV10670 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Singh, et al. v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV11478 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Smith, et al. v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV12265 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Cazares v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV13101 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Jungwirth v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV13782 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Hutchinson v. California FAIR Plan Association, et al., Case No. 25STCV16444 (Los Angeles Superior Court)
    • Layton, et al. v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07216 GW (JCx) (C.D. Cal.)
  • Represented insurer in federal securities class action against insurer, with claims alleging misleading statements in the insurer’s 2021 IPO filings
    •
    • Marquez v. Bright Health Group, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-101 (E.D.N.Y.)
  • Successfully represented insurer in securities class action and shareholder derivative suits relating to underwriting practices and loss reserves, achieving dismissal of claims through successful motions to dismiss
    •
    • Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 Pension Fund v. ProAssurance Corporation, 600 F. Supp. 3d 1189 (N.D. Ala.) (securities class action)
    • In re ProAssurance Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 2022-0034-LWW, 2023 Del. Ch. LEXIS 385 (Del. Ch. Ct.) (consolidated derivative suits)
  • Obtained dismissals of securities fraud class action lawsuit against insurer and former officers alleging false statements concerning loss exposure related to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma
    •
    • In re PXRE Group, Ltd. Sec. Litig., 600 F.Supp.2d 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
    • Condra v. PXRE Group Ltd., 357 Fed. Appx. 393 (2d Cir. 2009)
    • Anegada Master Fund, Ltd. v. PXRE Group Ltd., 680 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
  • Represented AIG board of directors in shareholder suits
  • Successful defense of life insurer in putative class litigations challenging “cost of insurance” adjustments in universal life insurance policies
  • Represented insurer board of directors in connection with review of shareholder demand requesting that board pursue lawsuits against the U.S. Federal Government and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
  • Represented insurer in its board of directors in merger litigation arising from an acquisition
    •
    • Roth v. Phoenix Cos. Inc., Index No. 650634/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cny.)
    • Bushansky v. Phoenix Cos., No. X08FSTCV156027891S (Conn. Sup. Ct.)
Show more
Wordings Advice
Insurers retain Simpson Thacher to review their existing coverage wordings to minimize litigation risk and to assist with developing wording for new coverages, in light of evolving technology, legislation and litigation.  
Regulatory Defense
Working with our regulatory and investigations practice groups, we help insurers navigate inquiries from attorneys general, district attorneys, departments of insurance and other regulators. We have assisted carriers in responding to inquiries related to data collecting, business practices and claims handling.  

Related Practice Areas

    News & Events

      Publications

        In This Section

        Contact

        Spotlight on
        Insurance Law Alert Resource Center
        Read our monthly publication >
        Spotlight on
        Simpson Thacher Honored at 2026 Benchmark Litigation Awards
        Read more >
        Spotlight on
        Summer Craig Elected a Fellow of the American College of Coverage Counsel
        Read more >
        Spotlight on
        Simpson Thacher Named a Finalist for NYLJ Insurance and Finance “Litigation Department of the Year”
        Read more >
        Spotlight on
        Simpson Thacher Named a Law360 Insurance “Practice Group of the Year” for 2023
        Read more >
        Spotlight on
        Bryce Friedman Named a 2020 “MVP” in Insurance by Law360
        Read more >