Gabriela Richeimer

Career

Gaby Richeimer is a skilled litigator with successes in a variety of insurance and non-insurance matters in state and federal courts. She has litigated insurance coverage and bad faith lawsuits in areas of healthcare and other professional liability, directors and officers liability, general liability, first-party property, and other insurance lines of business.

In addition, Gaby regularly litigates defense matters in areas of professional liability, First Amendment, and general business torts. Gaby’s insurance counseling practice focuses on healthcare professional liability, D&O liability, and reinsurance matters.

Professional Memberships

Claims and Litigation Management Alliance

Work Highlights

On behalf of insurer, successfully litigated consumer complaint alleging unfair insurance claim practices before Maryland Insurance Administration

On behalf of insurer, obtained summary judgment under both New York and New Jersey law that policyholder had not satisfied the condition precedent set forth in client’s excess D&O policy of full exhaustion of underlying limits

On behalf of insurer clients, prevailed in multiple COVID-19 business interruption cases in state and federal courts in Maryland, Virginia, and elsewhere in the United States, resulting in reported decisions such as Bel Air Auto Auction v Great Northern Insurance Company, Central Laundry LLC v Illinois Union Insurance Company and Carilion Clinic Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company.

On behalf of individual client, secured dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract action in Delaware Chancery Court. Turner v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., 2020 WL 3547954 (W.D. Okla. June 30, 2020)

On behalf of individual client, secured dismissal of defamation action in New York state court. Guo v. Wallop, No. 157538/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)

On behalf of insurer, secured summary judgment in coverage action, with the district court finding that the insured had not been included in a declaratory judgment action as a defendant in an insured capacity. Turner v. XL Specialty Insurance Co., 2020 WL 3547954 (W.D. Okla. June 30, 2020)

On behalf of insurer, in role of policyholder under an insurance company E&O policy, prevailing on appeal and later at trial with respect “prior knowledge” issue. Med. Protective Co. of Fort Wayne, Ind. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 911 F.3d 438 (7th Cir. 2018), reh’g denied (Jan. 29, 2019), on remand to No. 1:13-cv-00357 (N.D. Ind.)

On behalf of insurer, secured summary judgment in coverage action, with the district court finding that the operative “claim” – a formal investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – was first made prior to the policy period. Patriarch Partners v. AXIS Ins. Co., No. 16-cv-2277 (VEC), 2017 WL 4233078 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017), affirmed 2018 WL 6431024 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2018).

On behalf of insurer, secured affirmance of dismissal of bad faith claim and also reversal of district court opinion on the “claim” issue resulting in complete victory for client. Morden v. XL Specialty Ins., 903 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2018)

On behalf of insurer, obtained reversal of class certification in New Mexico federal court involving more than 330,000 potential class members who had purchased automobile insurance from the client and prevailed on remand to the district court. Soseeah v Sentry Insurance Co., 808 F.3d 800 (10th Cir. 2015).

Defended insurer in a Florida federal court action involving a financial services professional liability policy. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the insured was not entitled to a “double recovery” in a breach of contract action against the insurer after having received full indemnification from a third party. On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, the court affirmed on the alternative ground that, under Florida law, the third party’s indemnification obligation took precedence and the third party was legally obligated to pay the insured’s litigation costs and settlement before the insurer could be asked to pay. Maplewood Partners LP v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 654 F. App’x 466 (11th Cir. 2016). Insurer ultimately recovered over $1 million in attorneys’ fees under Florida’s offer of judgment statute.

On behalf of medical professional (retained by the insurer), obtained reversal in Tennessee Court of Appeals of multi-million malpractice verdict for improper exclusion of expert testimony.

Successfully negotiated a confidential pre-suit settlement on behalf of commercial client with insurer for law firm accused of malpractice.

Represented umbrella carrier in connection with several personal injury claims in South Carolina against a retailer and, through a combination of litigation and negotiation, obtained favorable contributions from multiple other insurers—reducing the client’s exposure by millions of dollars.

Defended E&O insurer in coverage litigation in Maryland involving multiple insurance companies and negotiated favorable settlement for the client.

Defended insurer against spoliation claim in West Virginia state court and negotiated nominal settlement.

On behalf of excess insurer, successfully argued in Washington state court that underlying policies were not exhausted by policyholder’s below-limits settlement. Quellos Group v. Federal Insurance Company, 312 P.3d 734 (Wash. App. 2013).

On behalf of insurer, obtained summary judgment dismissing bad faith claims asserted in Seattle federal court.

Represented an insurer client in a lead contamination case alleging hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in duty to defend and consent to settle issues, winning on motion before the trial court and on appeal.

On behalf of an insurer, successfully tried a rescission action involving an employee fidelity policy in Alexandria federal court.

On behalf of an insurer, argued questions regarding late notice under a claims-made insurance policy before the Texas Supreme Court and Maryland Court of Appeals.

On behalf of an insurer, successfully argued in Illinois federal court the application of the “Insured v. Insured” exclusion.

On behalf of an insurer, prevailed on summary judgment in New Hampshire district court on a novel question of interpretation of the term “Loss” and whether it includes common stock issued as part of a securities action settlement.

Expert in these Jurisdictions

District of Columbia

Maryland

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

U.S. Supreme Court

Education