PROFESSIONALS

Matthew J. Fink

Partner
blank image Matthew J. Fink
600 17th Street
Suite 2700S
Denver, CO 80202, US

T: 720.894.0890 F: 720.894.0881
10 South Wacker Drive
36th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606, US

T: 312.585.1418 F: 312.585.1401
pdf vcard
Biography
BIOGRAPHY
Matt focuses exclusively on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation representing insurance companies. He has achieved an extensive track record of favorable outcomes in complex, high-exposure cases in state and federal courts across the nation. Through his skilled advocacy, Matt has created many important legal precedents in insurance law involving issues of first impression. For years, Matt has consistently been recognized by Chambers & Partners as a leading practitioner in insurance coverage disputes.
Matt counsels clients and litigates coverage disputes involving a wide range of policies and exposures, including commercial liability claims involving defective products, food contamination, property damage and catastrophic bodily injury, construction defect claims, pollution liability policies, financial lines, and transportation. 
My approach is, in a word, proactive. I move quickly to identify and advance the strengths of my cases and to minimize the risks.

Awards & Rankings

  • Chambers USA, Insurance: Dispute Resolution (Illinois), 2016 — present
  • The Best Lawyers in America® (Insurance Law and Litigation - Insurance), Best Lawyers®, 2021 – present
  • Illinois Super Lawyers® (Insurance Coverage), 2005 – 2006, 2008, 2010 – present

Outside Nicolaides

Matt enjoys road biking, hiking, golf, and squash. He recently celebrated his 30th wedding anniversary and enjoys spending time with his family, including the recent addition of a grandson.

EXPERIENCE

    Case Study

  • Repeated molestation claims against religious organization

    The New York Court of Appeals adopted our position that repeated sexual molestations constituted separate occurrences and must be equitably allocated across all years in which they took place. The Court also concurred that our client had not waived its right to litigate these issues.

    • Case Study

  • West Virginia pollution

    In a high-stakes case involving coverage under a pollution legal liability policy, we presented issues of first impression and secured summary judgment in West Virginia federal court. The underlying class action case alleged injury and damage from exposure to carbon black from a manufacturing facility.

  • Obtained summary judgment, and affirmance at appellate level, based on the trial court finding that a constellation of claims relating to the insured’s abandonment of cathode ray tubes in rented warehouses did not fall within coverage of the client’s pollution liability policy on basis that the claim was made prior to the policy period, the alleged clean-up costs were not because of a pollution incident, the alleged pollution incidents at one property were before the retrospective date, and two exclusions applied. 
  • Obtained summary judgment for excess insurer on the basis that additional insured vendor’s failure to properly inspect a returned electronic rat trap before placing it back on a shelf with batteries inside, resulting in injury to a customer, precluded any duty to indemnify the vendor for a $9 million arbitration award.  
  • Secured multimillion-dollar judgment requiring the insured and another insurer to reimburse our insurer client based upon a batch clause endorsement.
  • Won jury verdict for excess insurers, finding they acted in good faith when they rejected claimant's unreasonable settlement demands in the underlying personal injury lawsuit, even though the claims resulted in a $30 million judgment, which exceeded clients' limits.
  • Obtained summary judgment holding that CGL coverage, part of client's primary OCIP policy, provided only a single $5 million completed-operations aggregate liability limit, regardless how projects sustained damage; defeated argument that $5 million aggregate limit was owed for each of 71 scheduled projects.
  • Obtained dismissal of complaint against excess insurer seeking coverage for lawsuit alleging that insured misrepresented its insurance to the underlying plaintiffs to induce them to settle for less than their damages.
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of insurers on insured's counterclaims for bad faith and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which also resulted in defeat of insured's request for attorney's fees under Minnesota's "Morrison" exception to the American Rule.
  • In a case of first impression, secured summary judgment for client over bad-faith claims involving alleged failure to settle underlying railroad-crossing accident case, in which client only offered the insured's $5 million retention, followed by a $54 million verdict.
  • Obtained summary judgment for excess insurer with respect to bad-faith claims handling allegations.
  • Obtained summary judgment for umbrella insurer finding that the insured's untimely notice of lawsuit involving brain damage due to carbon monoxide exposure breached the policy's notice condition, because insurer lost the opportunity to investigate and defend against the suit, precluding any duty to indemnify insured for $3.5 million award. 
  • Successfully convinced Illinois Appellate Court to reverse $5.5 million judgment, which agreed that the trial court applied the wrong state's law of the incorrect jurisdiction and agreed that the known loss doctrine precluded coverage.
  • Obtained summary judgment for insurer that there was no coverage for class-action settlement of claims for improper dissemination of personal medical information.
  • Secured summary judgment, affirmed by Fifth Circuit, that class-action settlement over defective, mold-resistant decking was not for damages caused by an "occurrence."
  • Obtained summary judgment, affirmed by the Third Circuit, that insurance policy owed no obligation to reimburse insured $16.8 million in attorneys' fees incurred to defend litigation against tobacco company.
  • Secured summary judgment over claimant's $7 million consent judgment on the basis that it was executed without the insurers' consent, breaching policy conditions, resulting in dismissal of $70 million bad-faith and punitive-damages claim; affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit.
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of excess insurer that late notice of catastrophic bodily-injury lawsuit precluded coverage.
  • Secured summary judgment on basis that client did not violate eight different provisions of Kentucky's Fair Claim Handling Act, including a failure to settle and misrepresentation of policy terms; affirmed by Kentucky Appellate Court.
  • Obtained summary judgment for insurer, finding that manufacturer of defectively coated pipes installed under Louisiana highway was not entitled to coverage for its $15 million settlement with the Louisiana Highway Authority.
  • Obtained summary judgment in case of first impression in Missouri enforcing an athletic participant's exclusion for claim that insured failed to provide adequate medical care to boxer after a fight resulting in permanent brain injury; affirmed by the Missouri Appellate Court.
  • Secured summary judgment finding no advertising injury coverage for a patent infringement claim involving an automated telephone system used to sell insured's products.
  • In a case with significant industry implications, secured summary judgment that title of auto passed with delivery, regardless of title document, meaning the dealership's policy did not cover an accident after vehicle was delivered.
  • Successfully navigated clients through state and federal court litigation that included bankruptcy court involvement, culminating in a favorable decision of first impression by the Illinois Supreme Court affirming that property damage coverage is triggered only by an actual leak in the insured's polybutylene pipe, resulting in third-party property damage, and therefore the cost to replace defective pipe that is not leaking is not covered "property damage" under a CGL policy.
  • Represented global insurer in dispute over coverage for claim by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation against the insured trading post for releasing hazardous substances into the environment from retail storage tanks containing gasoline and diesel, resulting in soil contamination of site owned by insured.
INSIGHTS

ADDITIONAL SPEAKING & WRITING

  • Presenter, "What's Up with Missouri?" private client seminar, Boston, Massachusetts (October 2018)
  • Presenter, "Property Damage Overview," private client seminars, Warren, N.J. and New York, NY (May 2018)
  • Presenter, "Coverage Outliers," private client seminar, Chicago, IL (January 2018)
  • Presenter, "Bad Faith Mock Trial," private client seminar, Basking Ridge, N.J. (December 2017)
NEWS