Nathan Lander is a partner in the Insurance Recovery & Counseling Group who represents clients in high-stakes disputes with their insurance companies as well as counseling them regarding a wide array of insurance issues. Clients have praised Nate in Chambers and The Legal 500 as being “responsive, knowledgeable and creative,” a “zealous advocate” and “absolutely amazing to work with.”
During the course of his career, Nate has assisted clients in recovering more than $1 billion in disputes with their insurers through litigations, arbitrations, mediations and negotiations. Nate prides himself in helping clients reach favorable resolutions with their insurers where possible, but when insurers refuse to pay, Nate has aggressively litigated coverage disputes against them in courts and arbitrations throughout the country.
Although Nate has represented a wide range of policyholder clients – including Fortune 500 companies and professional sports teams, among others – Nate is particularly well-known for his representations of asset management clients in insurance disputes. Nate has represented numerous private equity firms and portfolio companies, hedge funds, registered funds, venture capital firms, and other asset managers in disputes with insurance companies, including claims for coverage under D&O, E&O, crime, life, property, and other policies. For example, Nate was recently lead counsel for a private equity firm in a litigation over $100 million of coverage its insurers refused to provide for claims against the private equity firm arising from the bankruptcy of a portfolio company.
In addition to his litigation practice, Nate also regularly advises clients on risk management issues, including structuring of insurance programs and the negotiation and drafting of policy language, in order to help protect clients in the event of a claim or loss. Nate has particular experience with respect to the insurance markets and products for asset management clients. He has assisted numerous asset managers of all types and portfolio companies in reviewing and negotiating potential insurance policies or programs, including D&O, E&O, EPL, fiduciary, crime, cyber, reps & warranties and other specialized products.
Subscribe to all posts by Nathan Lander
Professional liability insurance policyholders often breathe a sigh of relief when their insurer begins funding the costs of defending against a civil claim or government investigation. That is one of the reasons they bought the insurance in the first place! However, as one policyholder recently learned, just because the insurer advances defense costs doesn’t mean … Continue Reading
On October 29, the Fifth Circuit reversed itself for the second time this year in a case involving the interpretation of a contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy. This recent decision by the Fifth Circuit in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., coupled with decisions from the Texas Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit earlier this … Continue Reading
If you are required by law to perform an act, the act is not “voluntary.” This proposition may seem obvious enough to most, but one insurer recently needed to be reminded of this common sense point by a Pennsylvania federal court in First Commonwealth Bank v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company. There, the Court held … Continue Reading
Many insurers are in the habit of sending perfunctory “reservation of rights” letters to their insureds throughout the lifetime of a claim. The reason they do so is not a very well-guarded secret in the insurance industry. An insurer that acknowledges coverage must pay any eventual settlement or judgment, while an insurer that denies coverage … Continue Reading
How is a policyholder supposed to obtain coverage under a policy that requires the insured to bring its claim within two years of the loss and also imposes preconditions on bringing a claim that cannot reasonably be satisfied within two years? Recognizing the fundamental unfairness of such inconsistent policy provisions, the New York Court of … Continue Reading
Until recently, New York’s Insurance Law presented something of a dilemma for insurance companies concerning how quickly they were required to inform their policyholders that they were denying coverage for a claim. On the one hand, the law requires insurers to inform them “as soon as is reasonably possible” when disclaiming coverage for certain types … Continue Reading
Many excess insurance policies provide that coverage is not available unless all underlying insurers have first paid the full limits of their policies. Relying on such language, excess insurers argue that when a policyholder settles a claim with an underlying insurer for less than the full limits of their policy, the policyholder forfeits any coverage … Continue Reading
Syracuse University and National Union Fire Insurance Company recently settled a much-watched coverage battle over National Union’s obligation to cover Syracuse’s costs in responding to grand jury subpoenas. Fortunately for policyholders, National Union’s decision to settle came after Syracuse prevailed in the trial and intermediate appellate courts, yielding a pro-policyholder decision that such subpoenas fall … Continue Reading
Companies facing lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming continuous or progressive injuries or property damage, such as environmental damage, construction defects, or asbestosis, often try to maximize their insurance coverage for such claims by looking to all policies in force during the multiple, successive years in which the alleged injuries or damage took place. A Delaware … Continue Reading
It is an unwelcome experience for any policyholder to receive a claim denial letter in which the insurer contends that the language of the policy excludes the claim in question. Even more frustrating for the policyholder, however, is when the insurer contends that even if the policy language does cover the claim in question, “public … Continue Reading