Insurance Coverage
The Lynn Law Firm is passionate about representing policyholders on insurance coverage claims. We are experienced insurance coverage dispute attorneys, and we work on your behalf to obtain what is owed to you by your insurance company. Our firm takes pride in its unprecedented track record of overturning insurance denials and confirming insurance coverage and payments on behalf of policyholders.
Insurance companies have unlimited resources to deny, delay, and litigate insurance claim coverage and denial issues. When coverage is denied, or the insured is subjected to an insurance investigation, the attorneys at the Lynn Law Firm can help to determine if the denial of coverage was valid – that is, the policy should have provided coverage for the loss.
Our attorneys have the knowledge and experience to analyze complex coverage issues and pursue a claim against the insurance company in cases when there is an improper denial of coverage. Our attorneys have earned the respect of insurance companies, because they know we will conduct a full investigation and vigorously represent the interests of our client through trial and on appeal, if necessary.
The Lynn Law Firm Difference
The Lynn Law Firm is passionate about representing policyholders on insurance coverage claims.
Insurance companies have unlimited resources to deny, delay, and litigate insurance claim coverage and denial issues. The Lynn Law Firm takes pride in its unprecedented track record of overturning insurance denials and obtaining insurance coverage and payments on behalf of policyholders.
The Lynn Law Firm have been recognized by the New York State Bar Association for their outstanding practice in the field of insurance coverage law. The American College of Trial Lawyers has recognized Lynn Law for their ability as trial attorneys, having taken numerous insurance coverage cases to verdict on behalf of insureds.
The Lynn Law Firm is available for a free consultation on your insurance claim.
How To Retain The Lynn Law Firm
The Lynn Law Firm often works on a contingency fee basis, which means that the Lynn Law Firm does not get paid unless we make a recovery for you on your insurance claim.
The Lynn Law Firm will front any expenses, including expert witness fees, on the case and charges the fees on the net recovery. This means that the Lynn Law Firm partners with you when it accepts and prosecutes your insurance claim.
(In certain circumstances, clients prefer alternative fee arrangements, such as hourly billing, and we can discuss these options with you as well.)
We have represented insureds in a wide variety of claims, most often resulting in an enforcement of insurance coverage and payment on the claim.
Insurance Terminology
We would like to help provide some clarity on some common insurance terms. Unfortunately insurance companies can purposefully cloud contracts with these items. We specialize in deconstructing these contracts so we can understand them.
Steps In An Insurance Claim
We outline what the typical steps are in an insurance claim to simplify the process and establish expectations.
We Are Uniquely Skilled
The Lynn Law Firm has three members of the venerable American College of Trial Lawyers. In addition, Mr. Lynn and Mr. Shannon have both been recognized by the New York State Bar Association for their outstanding contribution to the practice of law in the field of insurance.
Representative Cases & Settlements
Insurance Coverage Settlements
- More than $10,000,000 for manufacturing company’s business-income loss following claim denial
- $1,500,000 – retail and manufacturing company following claim denial
- $3,000,000 – insurance claim after a fire, dispute rested in valuation
- $365,000 – homeowners after water loss at home following claim denial related to the faulty workmanship exclusion
- $540,000 – retail business damaged by fire following claim denial related to improperly identified building structures
- $400,000 – owner of rental property following claim denial
- $725,000 – disability insurance policy denial of a doctor
- $337,500 – historic restaurant damaged by a pipe burst in the Capital District
- $300,000 for a residency dispute
- $405,000 – lumber mill that experienced a loss following an equipment breakdown
- $725,000 – medical development facility damaged by water following claim denial
- $325,000 – water damage at a commercial property in downtown Syracuse
- $275,681 – apartment complex following a fire, with specific asbestos concerns
- $650,000 – water damage at a hotel in Binghampton
- $540,00 – pollution liability claim
- $750,000 – fire at a commercial property
- $260,000 – verdict for claim denied on the basis of residency
- $301,772 – verdict upheld on appeal for a claim denied on the basis of residency
- $460,000 – for a claim denied on the basis of residency
Representative Cases
- Summary judgment granted in favor of our clients in a homeowners insurance dispute; holding that the insurance company wrongly denied coverage on the basis of a “faulty workmanship” exclusion.
- Decision granting judgment to client commercial business following roof damage and water leak after dispute over policy terms of “backup” and “overflow” as used in the water exception exclusion.
- Insurance coverage matter regarding the “residence premises” definition in a homeowners policy.
- Court ruled in client’s favor holding that the signing of a proof of loss did not waive any claim for further payments and that the policy requirement of 180 days to obtain replacement cost benefits did not require that the property actually be replaced in that period.
- Client’s motion for summary judgment granted by the Court with respect to claim for coverage under the “Ordinance or Law” term of an insurance policy.
- Defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment denied as there was a question of fact as to whether plaintiff took reasonable care to maintain heat.
- Client’s motion for summary judgment granted by the Court as the loss originated from the weight of ice and snow, which was a covered cause of loss. The “Wear and Tear” exclusion did not apply as it contained the “arise from” clause.
- Defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment denied as there was a question of fact as to cause of loss being damage caused from the weight of ice and snow after defendant’s denial of coverage under the wear and tear exclusion
- Defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment denied as there was a question of fact regarding the cause of the barn’s collapse being due to the weight of ice and snow, or wind.
- Defendant insurer’s motion of summary judgment denied, and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment granted, as there was no question of fact as to the requirements of the applicable policy’s protective safeguards endorsement.
- Defendant insurer’s motion of summary judgment denied, as market value and contracted sale price of a property is not the only material factor in calculating actual cash value and the insured’s “interest” in the property.
- Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted as to the issue of enforceability of the residency requirement of the applicable insurance policy. At trial, defendants were prohibited from arguing that they validly disclaimed coverage because plaintiff violated the residency requirement.
- Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted for declaratory judgment and breach of contract was granted as defendant was estopped and ratified the insurance contract, ignoring plaintiff’s residency status of the home, accepting premiums for 17 months following its denial of coverage. Further, the applicable insurance contract contained a provision which permitted plaintiff to leave the home vacant or unoccupied for any length of time, which was in direct conflict with the above-referenced provision, rendering the residency provision unenforceable.
Every legal matter is different. The outcome of each legal case depends upon many factors, including the facts of the case, and no attorney can guarantee a positive result in any case. Any testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.