Insurance coverage disputes and litigation frequently arise between policy holders and insurers, and Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North lawyers stand ready to represent our insurance company clients in these matters.

Insurance coverage conflicts are a mainstay of our practice, with our clients benefitting from our attorneys’ in-depth knowledge and understanding of the challenging, highly regulated environment in which insurers operate. We regularly provide clients with regional as well as national representation in addition to detailed coverage opinions and the prosecution and defense of declaratory judgment actions.

Our coverage dispute experience includes commercial general liability (CGL); professional negligence; automobile; commercial, industrial and residential property; specialty risk, such as environmental and toxic tort; and other forms of insurance. The lawyers of Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North have litigated countless coverage disputes arising out of a host of insurance policy interpretation and application discrepancies including availability of coverage, triggering of coverage, indemnity, duty to defend, additional insured endorsements, broad form contractual coverage, multiple occurrences, policy exclusions and supplementary payments provisions. 

In fact, our attorneys have litigated hundreds of coverage disputes based on a host of issues regarding insurance policy interpretation and application some of which include:

•    Additional Insured Endorsements
•    Application of Supplementary Payments Provision
•    Broad Form Contractual Coverage
•    Duty to Defend
•    Multiple Occurrence Issues
•    Policy Exclusions (Intended or Expected, Business Risk Exclusions, Mold Exclusions, Etc.
•    Trigger of Coverage

Clients of Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North also benefit from our litigators’ collective experience in a variety of additional practice areas such as appellate, bad faith, excess insurance, commercial litigation, products liability, premises liability, environmental and toxic tort litigation and coverage, class action and subrogation. Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North attorneys bring their combined experience to bear in shaping effective, cost-efficient solutions for our clients. For each matter we handle, senior litigators provide personal attention during all phases of representation and deliver exceptional, responsive service at a reasonable cost. In short, we strive to craft and deliver a superior product.

Should your organization be in need of sound legal services, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. We look forward to serving you.

Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North maintains offices in Center City Philadelphia, Media, PA and Haddonfield, N.J. Our lawyers are active litigators throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware and beyond. We are proud of our outstanding reputation and record.

Related News and Events:

• Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North, Ltd. has been selected for inclusion in Best's Directories of Recommended Insurance Attorneys and Adjusters.
  July 1, 2010
  Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North, Ltd. has been selected for inclusion in Best's Directories of Recommended Insurance Attorneys and Adjusters.
  
  
• Jerry Valentini and John Morgenstern participated in the 2010 East Region Construction Defect and Insurance Coverage Conference
  June 4, 2010
  

  Jerry Valentini and John Morgenstern participated in the 2010 East Region Construction Defect and Insurance Coverage Conference sponsored by MC Consultants. 

  
  
  
• Six attorneys at Deasey Mahoney Valentini & North selected as SuperLawyers and SuperLawyers-Rising Stars.
  June 1, 2010
  

  Deasey Mahoney Valentini & North  is proud to announce that two of its shareholders have been selected as Super Lawyers by Philadelphia Magazine.  Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a rigorous, multiphase process.  

  
  
  
• New Jersey and Pennsylvania Insurance in Brief
  July 21, 2009
  Here are seven recent case law updates of interest to our industry.
  
  
• PA Supreme Court Enforces “Household Exclusion” to Preclude Recovery of UIM Benefits Following Motorcycle Accident, by Michael F. Schleigh, Esq.
  June 22, 2009
  On June 22, 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the “household exclusion” clause as it operates to preclude recovery for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident.  Specifically, the Court found that the policy provision did not violate the intent behind Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) and enforced the right of insurers to determine what risks to underwrite.
  
  
• Pa. Supreme Court Issues Important Coverage Decision in Construction Defect Case
  November 14, 2006
  On October 25, 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an important opinion in Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Company, a construction defect case, holding that there is no coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy for a claim based upon faulty workmanship.
  
  
• Superior Court: Bad Faith Claims are Subject to a 2-Year Statute of Limitations
  November 5, 2004
  On November 3, 2004, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in the case of Ash v. Continental Insurance Company, that any suit alleging bad faith against an insurance company must be filed within two years. This ruling follows a number of conflicting decisions handed down by Pennsylvania State and Federal Courts over the years. Some of those rulings held that the correct limitations period was 6 years, while others found that 2 years was the proper yardstick.