While Anderson Kill offers a full range of litigation services including commercial, bankruptcy, securities and intellectual property, its primary calling card is insurance; in that regard, the firm is dedicated to policyholder-only matters. Far from finding this a limiting approach, the firm has instead excelled at this with gusto, and is revered by peers on both sides of the “V.” “These guys are zealots,” opines a peer. “They view insurance litigation as a ‘holy war - good and evil.’ But they know what they’re doing; they’ve been doing this a long time. They know these carriers and they’ve kept these files, meticulously protecting them.” The firm has also managed to parlay its reputation as a go-to shop for traditional insurance-related areas like asbestos into a haven where clients can turn in instances of more recent threats such as cloud-related data breach and privacy issues. “These types of matters - cybersecurity, the cloud! - are areas that Anderson Kill really got a head start on years ago.” Clients are equally appreciative; “Anderson Kill excels at representing businesses and individuals in insurance coverage and claim disputes. They literally wrote the book in this arena, entitled Insurance Coverage Litigation. They are outstanding lawyers, brief writers and strategists” Firm figurehead Robert Horkovich is applauded by all who come into contact with him, including adversaries. “I adore him, even though we are usually screaming at each other. No one fights harder for his clients, and no one keeps you on your game like him. Doing battle with him makes you a better lawyer.” One such client weighs in, “Bob Horkovich knows EVERYTHING about asbestos coverage litigation! All of his work [for us] has been exceptional.” In one of his many lead trial counsel appointments, Horkovich represents The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in litigation commenced by its insurance company relating to coverage for numerous asbestos claims dating to the construction of the original World Trade Center. The matter, valued at over $50 million, was in front of the New York Supreme Court, which in November 2017 granted all five of Port Authority’s motions, ruling that coverage is triggered if claims allege exposure during the construction of the World Trade Center, that AIG has not set forth a valid argument of exhaustion of its policy, and that AIG’s duty to defend continues even after the policy exhausts. The court then reaffirmed its decision in April 2019. Horkovich also represented Siltronic in a policyholder matter, also against AIG. The client moved for summary judgment to the effect that an exclusion applied only if the pollution was expected or intended by the policyholder, in this case Siltronic, which bought the property not knowing that it already was contaminated. AIG moved for summary judgment that the exclusion applies if the releases to the environment were expected or intended by anyone, including the historic polluters and even neighbors. In July 2018, the court granted Siltronic's summary judgment motion and denied AIG's. Horkovich also represented the San Diego Unified Port District, once again against AIG, in a matter in which the client sought liability insurance coverage to help clean up the Port of San Diego arising from claims and suits. When AIG alleged exhaustion of policy limits and cut off funding, the Port filed suit. AIG recanted its claim of exhaustion, acknowledging that policy limits remained, but litigation continues as to when umbrellas take over what obligations and as to bad faith. In March 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that AIG must pay claims under its umbrella policies in addition to its primary policies. The Court entered final judgment regarding these two important rulings in March 2019.
