Skip to main content

Commercial Litigation

Strategic Counsel for Complex Business Disputes.

At LRD, we represent businesses and individuals in high-stakes commercial disputes with skill, precision, and a clear understanding of what’s at stake. Our attorneys are seasoned litigators who offer both courtroom experience and practical business insight, guiding clients through every phase of the litigation process—from early case evaluation to resolution.

We work closely with our clients to understand their industries, priorities, and tolerance for risk. When litigation is necessary, we approach each case with a strategy that reflects those goals. And when it’s not, we’re adept at pursuing favorable outcomes through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration.

Whether protecting a client’s bottom line or reputation, our commercial litigation team delivers informed, practical strategies designed for success in and out of court.

Our Commercial Litigation Experience Includes:


Contract Disputes

Resolving matters involving breach of contract, performance obligations, contract interpretation, and enforceability.

Business Torts

Handling claims involving fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation, and interference with contractual or business relationships.

Corporate Governance

Advising on disputes involving shareholder rights, fiduciary duties, board-level disagreements, and internal investigations.

Employment Litigation

Representing employers in claims involving wrongful termination, discrimination, and other employment-related conflicts.

Representative Results

We’ve delivered results that have shaped precedent and reduced millions in potential exposure for our clients.

TD Bank, N.A. v. Continental Ins. Co. of New Jersey

No. 19-cv-13457 (D.N.J)

Represented excess D&O insurer in coverage litigation by TD Bank to recover losses arising out of the Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme. Successfully removed case from state court to federal court using novel “snap removal” procedure. 


Harman Int’l Indus., Inc. v. Illinois Nat’l Ins. Co.

2023 WL 3055217 (Del. Super. Apr. 24, 2023)

Represented excess carrier in “bump up” coverage litigation in Delaware Superior Court CCLD.  Defeated policyholder’s initial summary judgment motion, paving the way for early resolution and exit from case.


In re Residential Capital, LLC/Drennen v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London

Adv. Pro. No. 15-01025 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2022)

Represented excess E&O insurer in long-running coverage litigation arising out of bankruptcy of Residential Capital, the residential mortgage division of GMAC.  Obtained ruling from bankruptcy court that excess insurers are not liable for prejudgment interest or extracontractual amounts due to lack of underlying exhaustion, eliminating hundreds of millions of dollars of exposure for excess carriers. 


Colony Insurance Company v. Henry Properties, Inc.

2022 WL 2668377 (N.D. Ga. July 11, 2022)

Obtained summary judgment ruling in favor of insurer holding that weapon exclusion and assault and battery exclusion in CGL policy barred coverage for shooting death at grocery store.


ChemTreat, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London

2020 WL 5637961 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2020)

Obtained summary judgment ruling in favor of insurer holding that prior knowledge exclusions in architects and engineers professional liability policy barred coverage.


Jalbert v. Zurich Serv. Corp.

953 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2020)

Won summary judgment and appellate affirmance for excess carrier that SEC investigation constituted a claim first made before the relevant policy period.


UBS Financial Serv. Inc. of Puerto Rico v. XL Specialty Ins. Co.

929 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2019)

Won appellate affirmance of judgment for insurer that specific litigation exclusion barred coverage for regulatory investigations, lawsuits, and over one thousand FINRA arbitrations filed after collapse of Puerto Rican bond market.


Nova Southeastern Univ., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co.

2019 WL 7820594 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2019)

Obtained favorable summary judgment ruling holding that lawsuit arising out of three alleged errors constituted a single “claim” under consecutive architects and engineers policies.