Amber Locklear

experience

• INSYS Therapeutics, Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance Company, (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, May 29, 2024). Prevailed on a summary judgment motion for XL Specialty Insurance Company. The Delaware bankruptcy court found that the policy's prior and pending litigation precluded coverage under the XL Policy for the noticed litigation because it related to a qui tam matter which was filed under seal prior to the prior and pending litigation date. 
• Together with co-counsel, obtained an arbitration award in favor of the insurers on allocation between covered Loss and uncovered loss following evidentiary hearing with respect to a $100 million claim under an Insurance Company Errors & Omissions insurance program.
• Martin Res. Mgmt. Corp. v. AXIS Ins. Co., 803 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2015). Won a dismissal on summary judgment on behalf of an insurance company against a $50 million claim for coverage in connection with an underlying minority shareholder dispute in a closely held oil and gas corporation. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted the motion for summary judgment holding that the settlement with the primary insurer precluded coverage under the client’s excess policy, and the decision was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Together with co-counsel, won a dismissal on summary judgment on behalf of insurers against a $50+ million claim with the court finding the fifty-three underlying actions and governmental investigations were barred from coverage by operation of a manuscript fee arrangement exclusion contained in an Insurance Company Errors & Omissions insurance policy.
• XL Specialty Ins. Co. v AR Capital, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 30319(U) (N.Y. Sup. February 2, 2021).Together with co-counsel, secured summary judgment on behalf of directors and officers liability insurers with the court holding that settlements by a limited liability company of a securities class action, derivative actions and an SEC consent order were not covered Loss because the director and officer defendants were not sued in their insured capacities and because the dual capacity exclusion barred coverage for the claims.
• Successfully defended a Side-A insurance company during settlement negotiations of an underlying litigation brought by former employees alleging that their former employer forced them to sell their company stock at an unfair price. Successfully asserted that no coverage was available under the Side-A Policy because the Claim was interrelated to a Claim made prior to the policy period.
• Secured a complete dismissal for an insurance company against a $17 million claim for coverage in connection with an SEC investigation against the insured. The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, agreeing that the plaintiff received the order of investigation before its policy was active.

News