Represents cedents, reinsurers, run-off vehicles, asset managers, and other entities in the (re)insurance sector in dispute resolution, coverage matters, and other matters that require counsel and advice. He has litigated and arbitrated disputes involving a broad range of issues in the P&C and life and health sectors, as well as many specialty lines, such as financial and surety products.
He has substantial experience in matters concerning allocation, aggregation, notice or sunset provisions, follow the fortunes/settlements, follow the form, underwriting and pricing, claims handling, utmost good faith, rescission, insolvency, subrogation, inuring coverage, regulatory issues, and a variety of different types of contract wording disputes arising under facultative certificates and reinsurance treaties.
Specific to the life reinsurance industry, Mr. DiUbaldo represents cedents and reinsurers in matters involving issues such as premium rate increases under YRT and other types of reinsurance treaties, recapture, actuarial/pricing issues, agent/broker misconduct and administrative errors, as well as other situations involving reinsured products and customary or bespoke provisions in life reinsurance agreements.
He also counsels clients on the drafting of reinsurance contracts and commutation agreements, issues pertaining to (re)insurer insolvencies, and has assisted on transactions in the (re)insurance sector.
Property & Casualty, Life & Health and Specialty Lines Insurance Dispute and Coverage Experience
Acts as coverage counsel for, or litigates/arbitrates on behalf of, insurers in matters involving many different lines of business, including commercial general liability, D&O, E&O, professional liability, EPL, property, business interruption, life and health, lender-placed insurance products, workers’ compensation, pollution, marine, and energy. He has substantial experience, at both the primary and excess layer, with a host of traditional insurance coverage issues, including trigger, exhaustion, allocation, number of occurrences/aggregation, other insurance provisions, scope of coverage, additional insured rights, recoupment, consent to settle or voluntary payment provisions, follow form clauses, and claims-made/notice requirements, as well as with both standard and unique exclusions or endorsements utilized in the industry.
In the CGL context, he has represented and counseled insurers on many different types of claims, including clergy abuse/sexual abuse, construction defect, lead paint exposure, diacetyl exposure, other types of alleged bodily injury, asbestos/toxic tort, third-party property damage, antitrust/statutory violations, environmental damage, product contamination, food borne illness, and pollution. His experience includes representing insurers in matters involving excess policy limit verdicts/settlements or in which bad faith is alleged.
He also assists insurers in the drafting of insurance policy wordings, both in the first- and third-party contexts, and has advised clients in this capacity on wording-related issues arising under property, CGL, E&O, financial lines, and other specialty coverages.
Mortgage-Related, Consumer Finance, Title Insurance and General Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Represents financial institutions, lenders, mortgage servicers, title insurers and other entities in complex litigation, arbitration, and regulatory matters involving, among other things:
- Quiet title claims, disputes involving lien priority or defects, alleged violations of and compliance with TILA, RESPA, HOEPA, and other consumer protection statutes, real property disputes, erroneous satisfaction/lien release matters, loan modification disputes, and disputes involving fraud, contract-based or negligence claims;
- Providing coverage advice to title insurers, and litigating title insurance coverage disputes, on matters involving consent to settle provisions, late notice and reporting provisions, bad faith and anti-assignment provisions in the context of access/easement issues, the scope of a carrier’s duty to defend for covered/uncovered causes of action, and the applicability of certain exclusions, such as the “assumed or agreed to” exclusion.
- Reinsurance-related issues pertaining to the duty of utmost good faith, follow the fortunes, the duty to disclose, the alleged breach of certain underwriting guidelines, and agent misconduct.
Certain reported decisions are listed below.
Representative Decisions and Engagements
Mr. DiUbaldo represents, or has represented, some of the world’s leading insurance and reinsurance companies in matters involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims arising from the P&C and life and health sectors. Many of these cases arose in the context of confidential arbitration proceedings, and thus are not reported. Recent matters include:
- Representing cedents and reinsurers in various arbitrations and pre-dispute matters involving a reinsurer’s or retrocessionaire’s ability to increase premium rates under YRT reinsurance treaties.
- Representing a life reinsurer in an arbitration involving the scope of a treaty’s contested claims provision, related clauses, and the duty of utmost good faith.
- Representing a cedent in a life reinsurance dispute involving underlying regulatory settlements and related issues.
- Represented a large global reinsurer in recovering a nine-figure damages award in a dispute concerning a host of property reinsurance coverages and the effect of subrogation, salvage and inuring recovery provisions.
- Represented cedents in life reinsurance disputes involving coverage issues pertaining to underlying claims involving alleged broker/agent misconduct.
- Represented numerous cedents and reinsurers in arbitrations involving a host of traditional reinsurance issues, including follow the fortunes/settlements, allocation, aggregation/number of occurrences, notice/sunset provisions, and utmost good faith.
- Star Ins. Co., et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 13-13807 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (obtaining a modification of a preliminary injunction issued against an arbitrator involved in a reinsurance dispute and limiting the scope of the injunction with respect to the arbitrator).
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, Nos. 06-4100, 06-4101 (two separate bench trials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) aff’d, 609 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. June 9, 2010) (concerning the reasonableness of a reinsurance allocation of certain products/non-products claims under follow form facultative certificates).
- ProNational Ins. Co. v. AXA Liabilities Managers, Inc., No. 08-PWG-2022-S (N.D. Ala. Jan. 11, 2010) (motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by a cedent against a claims administrator under the Federal Arbitration Act and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards).
- Seaton Insurance Co., et al. v. Cavell USA, et al., No. 07-cv-7032 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (granting motion to dismiss complaint in multi-million dollar fraud action).
- Suter v. General Accident Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2000881 (D.N.J. July 17, 2006) (verdict in a bench trial for the reinsurer based on bad faith claims handling and the cession of claims that were outside the scope of the reinsured policy).
- In re Liquidation of Integrity Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2795343 (N.J. Super. A.D. Oct. 2, 2006), aff’d (N.J. Sup. Ct., Dec. 13, 2007) (representing the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA) in New Jersey state court against an insolvent insurance company’s final distribution plan).
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., 392 F. Supp. 2d 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), aff’d 2006 WL 2990204 (2d Cir.) (representing a ceding company that prevailed in recovering multi-million dollars claims submitted to its reinsurer).
- Harbour House (Bal Harbour) Condominium Association, Inc., as assignee of TRG-Harbour House, LTD v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co., et al., No. 15-28921 (Circuit Ct., 11th Judicial District, Miami-Dade Cty, 2016) (obtaining pre-answer dismissal of declaratory judgment action brought by a developer seeking additional insured coverage for an underlying construction defect suit under various primary CGL policies issued to a subcontractor involved in a condominium project).
- The Unimax Corporation v. The Continental Ins. Co., et al., No. 2016-cv-279282 (Ga. Sup. Ct. 2017) (granting motion to dismiss environmental insurance coverage action), aff’d (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
- National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al. v. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, et al., No. 653575/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty 2017) (insurance coverage dispute involving underlying claims of sexual/physical abuse, granting motion for partial summary regarding pro rata allocation of defense and indemnity costs, number of occurrences, and exhaustion of multiple self-insured retentions).
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., et al., 87 A.D.3d 1057 (2d Dep't. 2011), aff’d, 2013 WL 1875302 (N.Y. 2013) (summary judgment for insurers in a dispute concerning the number of occurrences for underlying claims of sexual abuse, exhaustion of multiple SIRs, pro rata allocation, and waiver under New York law).
- Morgan Fuel & Heating Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., et al., No. 272/11 (Sup. Ct., Dutchess Cty., Dec. 21, 2011), aff’d, 2013 WL 1811259 (2d Dep’t 2013) (summary judgment for insurers in a dispute concerning the scope of coverage afforded by the insuring agreement of certain CGL policies and application of the policies' workers' compensation exclusion).
- Murphy, et al. v. Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.), Inc., et al., 2009 WL 513747, No. 08-cv-4196 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 2, 2009), aff’d, 370 Fed. Appx. 193 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary judgment for a D&O excess insurer concerning coverage for the directors and officers of Refco, Inc.).
- Pryor v. AGLIC, et al., MRS-L-1740-05 (N.J. Super. Ct., June 22, 2007) (motion to dismiss a claim against a professional liability insurer based on late notice and failure to comply with the provisions of a claim made and reported policy).
Consumer Finance & Title Insurance Defense
- SMI Home Mortgage v. Solano, No. 0381270/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct, Bronx Cty 2017) (obtaining judgment in favor of a mortgage servicer declaring an erroneous satisfaction of mortgage null and void, directing the City Register to cancel and discharge said satisfaction of mortgage, and declaring that a CEMA/mortgages are valid and subsisting liens and encumbrances on the subject property)
- SMI Home Mortgage v. Clemons, No. 503244/2015 (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March 29, 2016) (vacating an erroneous satisfaction of mortgage and obtaining a declaration that the consolidated mortgages at issue are valid and subsisting liens on the subject property).
- Brown v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al., No. 14-3454 (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2015), aff’d, 639 Fed. Appx. 200 (4th Cir. 2016) (obtained dismissal for securitized trust’s sponsor and depositor in action alleging fraud, violations of TILA, HOEPA, and RESPA, and various other claims)
- Jean-Baptiste v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., et al., No. CAE13-04688 (Prince George's Cty, Circuit Court, July 16, 2015) (obtaining dismissal of lawsuit against servicer/lender alleging violations of TILA, Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, and RESPA and asserting claims of rescission, conversion, wrongful foreclosure, and breach of fiduciary duty).
- Craig v. Saxon Mortgage Services, et al., 2015 WL 171234 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (obtaining dismissal of complaint alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the FDCPA and TILA, and other claims against lender/mortgage servicer).
- Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Saxon Mortgage Inc., et al., No. 23651-14 (D. Ct., Baltimore City, 2015) (obtaining dismissal of action against lender alleging certain violations related to abandoned property and seeking fines/violations).
- SMI Home Mortgage v. Coyne, No. 17838/0009 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty. 2014); SMI Home Mortgage v. Downs, et al., No. 18262-09 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., 2014); SMI Home Mortgage v. Goodman, No. 23786/09 (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.); SMI Home Mortgage v. Sakla, No. 005220/09 (Sup. Ct., Orange Cty.) SMI Home Mortgage v. Hakanjin, No. 10870/009 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty) (obtaining discharge of erroneous satisfaction of mortgage and declaration that CEMAs are valid and subsisting liens on the subject premises, taking priority over other liens).
- Deramo v. Laffey, et al., No. 15061/2011 (Sup. Ct., Queens Cty. 2014) (mortgage servicer not liable in action to determine adverse claims to property under New York’s Real Property and Proceedings Law).
- Suero-Sosa v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 706 (2d Dep’t 2013) (mortgage servicer not liable in tort for a plaintiff’s alleged injuries).