John A. Mattoon, Jr.



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

John Mattoon is a partner with the firm.  John’s practice focuses on representing clients in complex commercial disputes, including insurance/reinsurance coverage disputes, breach of contract matters, and general corporate litigation. He has litigated extensively in state and federal courts in New York and New Jersey where he has successfully argued and prevailed for his clients on dispositive motions.

John also represents numerous corporate clients, including financial software, private equity, non-profit and consumer products firms, with respect to both litigation and general corporate matters. John has represented a number of small businesses during the formation/startup process, which representation typically includes the drafting and negotiation of limited liability company and partnership agreements, as well as employment, licensing and vendor agreements.

  • Representative Matters

    Insurance and Reinsurance Coverage

    The Burlington Ins. Co. v. NYC Tr. Auth., 2017 N.Y. LEXIS 1404 (N.Y. Court of Appeals, June 6, 2017).
    Obtained a landmark ruling from the Court of Appeals in which the Court adopted a proximate cause test to determine the scope of additional insured coverage under a standard ISO endorsement. In doing so, the Court of Appeals reversed years of precedent from the Appellate Division, First Department and granted summary judgment to the firm’s client, The Burlington Insurance Company, declaring that Burlington did not owe additional insured coverage to the NYC Transit Authority with respect to an underlying personal injury action. Interpreting standard ISO policy language in Burlington’s policy, the Court held that the phrase “caused, in whole or in part” by the “acts or omissions” of the named insured refers to “proximate cause,” thereby requiring negligence by the named insured as a condition of coverage for additional insureds under the policy.

    This ruling has far-reaching implications for New York insurance coverage law. In addition to aligning New York law with that of other jurisdictions and the intent of the policy drafters, the decision now provides insurers with a coverage defense to additional insured coverage claims where the named insured is somehow causally connected to the accident, but otherwise without fault.

    Princeton Investment Partners, Ltd. v. RLI Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23512 (D. N.J. Feb. 9, 2018).
    Obtained dismissal of coverage claims against our insurer client. Court upheld policy exclusion barring coverage for failure to maintain insurance in litigation arising out of the lapsing of $15 million in “key person” life insurance.

    Zoological Society of Buffalo v. The Burlington Ins. Co., 10-cv-35 (W.D.N.Y. 2014).

    Successfully argued motion for summary judgment in federal court regarding the interpretation of an additional insured endorsement to a CGL insurance policy.

    View More

    Capri Holdings Limited v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., Docket No. BER-L-2322-21 (NJ Sup. Ct. Bergen Cty.)

    In this action we obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a policyholder’s claim for reimbursement of purported losses in the amount of $500 million under two commercial property insurance policies issued by our client, for alleged business interruption losses the policyholder sustained as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On motion to dismiss, we successfully argued that the policyholder was not entitled to the requested coverage because its losses were not the result of “direct physical loss of or damage to” its property, which is a prerequisite for business interruption coverage under the applicable policies. The court dismissed the policyholder’s claim with prejudice.

    Products Liability & Tort Litigation

    Successfully argued motion to dismiss a complaint alleging defamation and tortious interference.

    View More

    Business and Corporate Law

    Represented financial software company in sale by reverse triangular merger.

    Represented consumer products company as outside counsel from the start-up phase through the sale of the company.

  • Latest News & Articles

    Trial Victory on Professional Services Exclusion Upheld on Appeal

    The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. RLI Insurance Company, et ano., Docket No. A-4862-18 (N.J. App. Div. July 28, 2021) In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a trial ruling that RLI Insurance Company does not owe a defense to a putative additional…

    View More

    Firm Wins Summary Judgment in Property Damage Subrogation Case

    Selective Insurance Company v. Phillipsburg Marble Company, Index No. 157588/2012 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty). The firm recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of Selective Insurance Company as subrogee of its insured, Joseph Natoli Construction (“Natoli”), the general contractor on the Statue of Liberty monument renovation.  The court held that Sentinel…

    View More

    Ford Marrin Obtains Summary Judgment on Additional Insured Coverage

    Zoological Society of Buffalo, Inc. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103800 (W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2014). The firm recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of The Burlington Insurance Company in a case involving the interpretation of a blanket additional insured endorsement to a CGL insurance policy. The Western…

    View More

    Firm Obtains Million Dollar Subrogation Judgment on Behalf of Client

    The Burlington Insurance Company v. New York City Transit Authority, et al., Index No: 102774-2011 (Supreme Ct., New York County) (December 17, 2013). Ford Marrin recently obtained a million dollar subrogation judgment on behalf of The Burlington Insurance Company (as subrogee of the City of New York) against the New…

    View More

    Attempt to Correct Judgment Fails in Workers’ Compensation Case

    Attempt to Correct Judgment Fails in Workers’ Compensation Case, (NYLJ, Jun. 12, 2009).

    View More