Michelle R. Migdon

• Represented Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America and other related entities in an insurance coverage lawsuit in Delaware Superior Court seeking reimbursement from TIAA’s professional liability insurers of more than $60 million for the defense and settlement of class action lawsuits relating to delays in processing account holders’ transfer requests in certain investment accounts. Obtained a landmark decision granting summary judgment to TIAA, finding that a civil settlement of a lawsuit involving claims for disgorgement was an insurable loss under New York law, see 2016 WL 6534271 (Del. Super. Oct. 20, 2016), and secured a favorable jury verdict, after a six-day trial, finding that one insurer waived its consent to settle defense and that TIAA was entitled to recover 100% of its defense costs as reasonable and necessary. The summary judgment decision and jury verdict were both later affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.
• Represented AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. in a coverage action seeking recovery for a substantial stock settlement payment paid to a class of shareholders in a high-profile shareholder class action litigation. In a significant win for policyholders, the Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment to AMC, finding that AMC’s payment of shares to settle a lawsuit satisfied its insurance policy’s definition of “Loss.” Prior to that ruling, AMC had successfully settled with the majority of the insurance carriers in its directors and officers and management liability insurance tower.
• Represented Genworth Financial, Inc. and certain subsidiaries in connection with their claim under insurance company professional liability policies for more than $100 million in defense and settlement costs incurred in three class action lawsuits relating to alleged misrepresentations in the sale of long-term care insurance policies. The team secured two favorable summary judgment rulings in Delaware Superior Court, one pre-discovery in 2023 and one post-discovery in 2025, defeating the insurers’ reliance on three different policy exclusions. Genworth has successfully settled with multiple insurers in the tower.
• Represented a prominent real estate finance and investment company in connection with its claim for cost of corrections coverage under its professional liability insurance policies relating to certain mutual fund mispricing errors. Successfully defeated multiple defenses raised by the insurer in a favorable summary judgment ruling by the Southern District of New York.
• Represented The Options Clearing Corporation in a lawsuit seeking coverage for defense costs incurred in connection with an SEC and CFTC investigation. Secured a favorable summary judgment ruling for OCC finding that various “relatedness” exclusions in its directors and officers (“D&O”) policy did not apply (see The Options Clearing Corporation v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co., et al., C.A. No. N20C-11-001 AML CCLD, in the Superior Court of Delaware), followed by favorable settlements.
• Represented Putnam Investments LLC in seeking coverage for various fiduciary liability insurance claims, achieving successful pre-litigation resolution and reimbursement from Putnam’s insurers for settlement payments and defense costs incurred in underlying ERISA lawsuits relating to investment benefit programs.
• Represented Providence Services Corporation in a lawsuit in the Delaware Superior Court seeking coverage for a class action litigation arising out of Providence’s provision of private probationary services. Secured a favorable summary judgment decision finding that, under applicable Delaware law, coverage was not barred by the insurance company’s defense that the underlying class action lawsuit was related to a prior litigation. Following the court’s summary judgment ruling, Providence was able to achieve a favorable settlement.
• Represented Cushman & Wakefield, the world’s largest privately held real estate services firm, in securing a favorable summary judgment ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. That decision rejected insurers’ reliance on an investment advisory exclusion to defeat coverage for defense costs and settlement payments in connection with four lawsuits concerning underlying appraisal-related claims. The court also rejected the insurers’ counterclaims for recoupment of over $33 million already paid to Cushman by the carriers.
• Represented Verizon Communications Inc. in an insurance coverage lawsuit filed in Delaware Superior Court seeking reimbursement under executive and organization liability insurance policies for tens of millions of dollars in defense costs that Verizon and a former officer/director incurred in successfully defending against lawsuits arising out of securities-related transactions entered into in connection with Verizon’s divestiture of certain directories businesses.
• Represented a family entertainment and amusement park operating company in a jury trial in Alabama state court against an insurance company that had denied coverage under a “key-man” life insurance policy after the death of the company’s CEO.
• Represented Syracuse University in a successful claim for coverage under a Not-For-Profit Individual and Organization Insurance Policy. In March 2013, the university was awarded summary judgment for defense costs it incurred in responding to and conducting an investigation in connection with various state and federal grand jury subpoenas relating to allegations of sexual abuse against the university’s former associate basketball coach. New York’s Appellate Division, 4th Department unanimously affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling.
• Represented Signal Products Inc., a handbag manufacturer, in a lawsuit seeking defense cost coverage and bad faith damages from its commercial liability insurer relating to an underlying intellectual property and trade dress action brought against various fashion entities and licensees by a brand name company. In a landmark ruling by the Central District of California, the court found that California’s statute providing for the appointment of independent counsel does not limit the policyholder to obtaining payment for defense counsel from only one law firm.
• Represented a major New York City real estate owner and developer that incurred property damage and time element losses at multiple downtown office buildings as a result of Superstorm Sandy. Successfully negotiated for payment of insurance claim.
• Represented JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries in claims for bankers’ professional liability coverage in connection with its settlement of class action lawsuits arising out of the financial, banking, and other professional services it provided to Enron. Among other issues, the Appellate Division, First Department rendered a favorable decision, finding that the policyholder’s notice of potential claims that might be brought against it concerning Enron was sufficiently detailed to bring subsequent Enron-related claims into the insurance coverage in place at the time the notice was sent. JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. The Travelers Indemnity Co., et al., Index No. 600674/06, Supreme Court, New York County, 73 A.D.3d 9 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2010).
• Represented JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries in claims for bankers’ professional liability coverage in connection with its $2 billion settlement of class action lawsuits arising out of its underwriting of WorldCom bonds. Obtained favorable summary judgment ruling rejecting an insurer’s claim for rescission of its insurance policy on grounds of alleged misrepresentations. See JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. AIU Ins. Co, et. al., Index No. 601904/06, Supreme Court, New York County.
• Represented JPMorgan Chase & Co., as successor to Bank One Corporation, in claims for bankers’ professional liability insurance in connection with its settlement of multidistrict litigation involving breach of fiduciary duty claims by owners of NCFE bonds. See JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., et al., Index No. 603766/08, Supreme Court, New York County.
• Represented the scaffolding contractor for the construction site at Four Times Square in New York City in a successful appeal to the Second Circuit to enforce an insurance company’s waiver of subrogation rights under a builder’s risk insurance policy. After the insurer paid the property owner for property loss claims, the insurer, as subrogee, sued the contractor to recover the amounts it had paid, alleging gross negligence in the construction and installation of the scaffolding. Ruling for the contractor, the Second Circuit held that the public policy of the state of New York does not prohibit waivers of subrogation with respect to gross negligence claims where the parties to a construction contract have agreed to insure such losses as part of their risk allocation agreement and where the injured party is not deprived of compensation for its loss. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Universal Builders Supply, Inc., 409 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2005).
• Represented Lucent Technologies Inc., a major telecommunications company, in a successful arbitration seeking recovery of credit risk insurance payments for defaulted loans issued to its customers prior to the collapse of the telecommunications market, which loans were insured pursuant to a trust arrangement under a credit risk insurance policy. Achieved a substantial favorable settlement on the eve of the arbitration hearing.
• Represented Silverstein Properties Inc., the lessee of the World Trade Center, in its insurance claim for property and business interruption losses following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Recognized by The Legal 500 US for Insurance: Advice to Policyholders, 2020

Member, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee on Insurance Law, 2010-2013