image

Charles A. Booth

Partner

Call

  • T +1 212 269 4900
  • F +1 212 344 4294

Email

For more than thirty years, Mr. Booth has been a recognized leader in the representation of insurers in a wide variety of coverage disputes.

Mr. Booth’s approach emphasizes early planning and negotiation to achieve prompt success. Mr. Booth also brings to bear substantial litigation experience in order to achieve the best possible results for his clients. He has successfully tried such cases and argued appeals in multiple federal and state courts, in New York, New Jersey, and throughout the United States.

These matters have commonly involved cutting edge insurance coverage issues. The amounts at stake vary greatly and range up to eight figures.

The coverage claims based on toxic exposures have included liabilities for asbestos, silica, mold, lead paint, food and additives, and other respirable or ingestible substances. Other such coverage disputes have involved liabilities for environmental remediation, product recalls, health & pharmaceutical injury, medical devices, professional and D&O liability, ocean & inland marine operations, mining and subsidence, pastoral and other molestation, construction site accidents, additional insured coverage, and much more.

Mr. Booth has also advised and achieved highly successful results for the insurance industry on legislative matters and advises on underwriting issues. He has also successfully defended multiple bad faith claims and other direct actions against insurers.

In addition to his practice on behalf of insurers, Mr. Booth handles a wide range of general business issues and disputes. These include contract negotiations and commercial disputes. These also include the direct defense of businesses and individuals against a wide variety of suits and claims involving product liability, professional liability, personal injury and premises liability.

Mr. Booth also represents property owners, contractors, and design professionals on construction disputes, involving alleged project defects, change orders, delay damages, and on-site injuries.

  • Representative Matters

    Asbestos & Toxic Torts

    Mr. Booth has represented insurers in scores of major disputes nationwide involving coverage claims for asbestos-related and other toxic tort liabilities, including, among many others, such landmark matters as Continental Cas. Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., & App. Div.) (“the Keasbey Case”); Continental Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., & Rapid-American v. Allstate Ins. Co. (both N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., & Ct. App.) (“the Rapid-American Cases”); Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Mgmt. Corp., (S.D.N.Y.) (“the National Gypsum case”); and Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. (Del. Super. Ct.).  See also, for example, White Consolidated Indus., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. (W.D. Pa.); Eaton Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas); Mueller Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. (Mass. Super. Ct.); and Union Carbide Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., & Ct. App.).

    Environmental Contamination

    The representation of insurers in environmental liability and coverage disputes has included such matters as U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bunge N. Am. (D. Kansas); Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Duplan Corp., (S.D.N.Y.); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co. (S.D.N.Y) (“the W.R. Grace Environmental case”); and American Home Prods. Corp. v. Adriatic Ins. Co. (N.J. Super.).

    Other Toxic Exposures

    The defense of coverage claims for multiple other classes of alleged toxic exposures has included, for example: Bowles v. Massey Energy Co., et al. (Circuit Ct., W. Va.) (mining damage & injury); Monogahela Power Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., & Chempower, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co. (N.D.W. Va.) (toxic work place exposures); Abreu v. CNA Ins. Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (mold); Millennium Chemicals Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas) (lead paint).

    Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Coverage

    The defense of coverage claims involving pharmaceutical, medical device, and other health-related liabilities, has included E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Accident & Cas. Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.) (DES liability), & multiple such disputes resolved without coverage litigation.  The handling of coverage claims for pastoral and other molestation liability has included Continental Ins. Co. v. Catholic Foreign Mission Soc’y of America, Inc. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), and multiple matters resolved without coverage litigation.

    Construction Worksite Coverage

    Matters involving additional insured coverage, priority of coverage, exhaustion & “number of occurrences,” etc., have arisen from construction site accidents, World Trade Center injuries, and other losses, including: XL Insurance America, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire ins. Co. (Super Ct. Delaware); First Mercury Ins. Co., et al. v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); and American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. (S.D.N.Y.).

  • Latest News & Articles

    The Storm Has Passed For NY Insurance Law

    The Court of Appeals found that its prior K2 decision conflicted with its own precedent, and that there was no rational reason for departing from a well-established rule of New York insurance law. The court therefore reversed its holding from last year and reaffirmed the principle that an insurer that…

    View More

    Another View on K2 Investment v. American Insurance

    There has been much commentary suggesting that there has been a radical change in New York insurance law based on the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in K2 Inv. Group LLC v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 2013 N.Y. Slip Op 4270 (N.Y. June 11, 2013). According to…

    View More

    Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

    Partner Charles A. Booth writes about The Broad Impact on New York Insurance Law of the New York Court of Appeals’ Recent Ruling in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. Read more here: Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage, Volume 23, Issue 40 / July 12, 2013.

    View More

    “K2” Ruling on Insurer Refusal to Defend Fits Within Established Law

    Did the Court of Appeals adopt a new draconian penalty regarding when an insurer wrongfully fails to defend, or is the decision issued by the court on June 11, 2013, in K2 Investment Group v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. a logical application of established New York law to the…

    View More