Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith Lawyers

Insurance disputes rarely arrive on a quiet day. They arrive after a fire destroys a manufacturing facility, after war risks are invoked to deny claims on aircraft stranded in Russia, or after a supply chain collapses and the business interruption policy is read more narrowly than the insured had any reason to expect. Catastrophe creates the loss; the dispute over whether the policy responds is the second event, often the more consequential one.

Seiden Law represents both insureds and major insurance carriers in complex coverage and re-insurance litigation in U.S. state and federal courts and in arbitration. The firm has helped clients recover more than $200 million in insurance-related matters, working across catastrophic property loss, business interruption, war-risk exclusions, environmental and pollution claims, and re-insurance disputes spanning multiple jurisdictions. Handling disputes from both sides of the policy provides a working understanding of how insurers actually evaluate claims, where coverage positions are most vulnerable, and where the leverage in any given matter sits.

How Coverage Disputes Develop

Most contested insurance matters follow a recognizable arc. A loss occurs. The insured submits a claim. The carrier investigates, sometimes thoroughly, sometimes through reservation-of-rights letters signaling a denial is coming. When the denial arrives, it identifies one or more policy exclusions, conditions, or definitional issues as the basis. From that moment, the dispute is no longer about the loss; it is about the policy.

The terms that drive these disputes are often deeply technical. Causation provisions allocate loss between covered and excluded perils. Concurrent-causation doctrine and anti-concurrent-causation language can produce dramatically different results on similar facts. Sublimits, deductibles, and co-insurance provisions affect ultimate recovery. Bad-faith standards vary significantly by state. Policy interpretation is often the case, and the case is often won or lost on how the record is built around the words on the page.

Re-insurance disputes add layers of complexity. Treaty and facultative structures, multiple-layer towers, follow-the-fortunes provisions, and the interaction between reinsurers and retrocessionaires can produce contests that are partly contractual, partly factual, and almost always cross-jurisdictional. The firm handles these matters with attention to both the technical structure of the placements and the practical question of how value flows through the layers.

What Sets Seiden Law Apart

A 360-degree view of insurance disputes. Because the firm represents both insureds and insurers, it understands how each side evaluates exposure, builds its case, and negotiates a resolution. This insight enables the firm to anticipate strategies, identify inflection points, and position clients for the strongest possible outcome.
Integrated litigation and investigation. Litigators work hand-in-hand with analysts, investigators, and financial professionals to uncover hidden facts, reconstruct loss events, and evaluate damages with precision. This multidisciplinary model allows the firm to challenge carrier denials, expose inconsistencies, and identify post-loss conduct that strengthens clients’ claims.
Strength in complex, high-exposure matters. The firm has handled disputes connected to catastrophic fires, large-scale operational outages, and geopolitical conflict; including claims arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where the firm represents some of the world’s largest insurance carriers in novel and high-stakes litigation.
A reputation for relentless courtroom advocacy. This is a trial-oriented firm. Where coverage battles escalate, the team is prepared to try the case. Insurers and claimants alike know the firm is not afraid to litigate aggressively when settlement is either insufficient or strategically unsound.

Insurance and Re-Insurance Capabilities

Coverage disputes and claim denials. The firm litigates high-value claims across industries including energy, manufacturing, life sciences, infrastructure, and transportation. Matters include property damage and catastrophic loss, business interruption and contingent business interruption, fire and explosion events, builder’s risk claims, environmental and pollution events, supply-chain disruptions, and bad-faith claim handling.
Re-insurance litigation and international issues. The firm’s cross-border litigation strength is directly applicable to re-insurance disputes, which often involve cross-jurisdiction placements, complex treaty and facultative structures, multi-layer towers, global carriers and retrocessionaires, and foreign-law considerations or overseas asset issues.
Arbitration of insurance and re-insurance matters. The firm has represented clients in insurance arbitrations involving complex factual records, specialized technical experts, and high-stakes financial exposure. The firm develops tailored evidentiary strategies focused on policy interpretation, causation disputes, and industry-specific loss calculation methodologies.

Representative Matters

Renewable-energy manufacturer post-fire coverage litigation. Representation of a U.S. renewable-energy company seeking compensatory and punitive damages after a catastrophic fire that halted operations, with carriers denying coverage and triggering a high-value, multi-venue dispute.
Ukraine-related claims defense for global carriers. Defense of several of the world’s largest insurers in a highly complex claims arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These matters involve war-risk exclusions, sanctions implications, and cross-border fact patterns of first impression in many jurisdictions.
Cross-border investigations and recovery support. The firm leverages analyst and forensic-investigation teams to reconstruct loss events, evaluate causation, and support asset recovery when an insured’s business interruption has international dimensions.

Our Approach: Precision and Information Advantage

Insurance litigation is document-intensive and often hinges on technical details. The firm’s approach combines sharp legal interpretation, deep industry knowledge, data-driven investigation, meticulous loss analysis, and persuasive advocacy. The team is adept at handling cases with voluminous records, complex loss calculations, and tight dispute-resolution timelines, whether in court or arbitration.

Industries We Commonly Serve

Energy and renewables; real estate and construction; transportation and logistics; technology and manufacturing; financial services; agricultural and commodity operations; life sciences; infrastructure and industrial operations.

Common questions

Frequently asked questions

How quickly should counsel be engaged after a denial?

As soon as practicable. Many policy provisions impose strict time limits on suits, demands for appraisal, or the invocation of arbitration. Communications with the carrier in the days after a denial often significantly shape the eventual record, and statements made before counsel is engaged can be difficult to retract later. Early engagement also permits the systematic preservation of evidence that may be needed to establish coverage, including documentation of the loss, the operational impact, and the carrier’s conduct during the claim.

What is the difference between coverage litigation and bad-faith litigation?

Coverage litigation determines whether a policy responds to a particular loss. Bad-faith litigation addresses the carrier’s conduct in handling the claim, separate from the underlying coverage question. Standards for bad faith vary substantially by jurisdiction; some states recognize broad extra-contractual remedies including consequential damages and attorneys’ fees, while others impose more limited liability. In some matters, both coverage and bad-faith claims are pursued together. The strategic question of how to sequence these claims often turns on the applicable state law and the strength of the underlying coverage position.

How does war risk and political-violence coverage actually work?

War-risk and political-violence exclusions and coverages have become particularly important since the invasion of Ukraine and the seizure of leased aircraft and other assets in Russia. The relevant policy language varies significantly across markets, with London market wordings, U.S. domestic wordings, and bespoke aviation wordings each carrying their own definitional histories. Disputes typically turn on whether the underlying conduct constitutes war or warlike operations, hostile or warlike action, or a covered political-violence peril, and on the operation of any sanctions-related limitations.

When does insurance arbitration apply?

Many insurance and re-insurance policies contain arbitration clauses that require disputes to be resolved before a panel of arbitrators rather than in court. These clauses are particularly common in re-insurance, in surplus-lines coverage, and in commercial primary policies for sophisticated insureds. Arbitration in this context can offer faster resolution and confidentiality, but it also restricts discovery and limits appellate review.

Can the firm represent both insureds and carriers without conflict?

The firm represents insureds in some matters and insurers in others, with full attention to conflict-of-interest rules. No matter is undertaken where a current or former representation creates a conflict that cannot be resolved through informed consent or appropriate ethical screens. The advantage of representing both sides in different matters is the working understanding it provides of how insurers evaluate claims, set reserves, and structure settlement positions. That understanding informs strategy whether the firm is pursuing or defending a coverage claim.

ליטיגציה בתחום הביטוח