The law firm of Troutman Sanders LLP is pleased to announce the addition of Jonathan A. Constine to its Insurance group, specializing in D&O Insurance in Washington, D.C.
Prior to joining Troutman Sanders, Constine was a partner at Hogan Lovells LLP.
“Jon is one of the top D&O and professional liability coverage litigators in the country. We are very excited to have him join Troutman Sanders’ insurance practice group,” said Gary Dixon, Insurance partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.
Constine’s addition to Troutman Sanders brings the number of insurance practitioners in Washington, D.C. ranked by Chambers USA to seven, more than any other firm in DC. The Insurance practice at Troutman Sanders is consistently ranked by Chambers USA, which notes that the firm has “a level of depth that is rarely matched when it comes to contentious insurance matters.”
Constine has been handling insurance coverage litigation matters for 24 years. For the last 16 years, his litigation practice has focused exclusively on representing insurers in complex coverage litigation or as monitoring/coverage counsel in major securities, directors and officers (D&O), or employment practices litigation. In that regard, Constine has successfully represented insurers at the trial level and in arbitrations involving, among other things, “late notice” defenses, the Insured v. Insured exclusion, prior acts and warranty exclusions, the definition of “loss,” and coverage for disgorgement claims.
Constine has also handled numerous federal appellate and state Supreme Court cases involving coverage issues of national significance. Constine argued the Seventh Circuit case of Level 3 v. Federal Insurance Co., the lead case for the principle that claims for disgorgement do not result in “loss” under a D&O policy. He also argued the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Beretta v. Federal Insurance Co., which held that claims against gun manufacturers fell within the “products-hazard” exclusion. Beretta was ranked by Mealy’s Litigation Report as one of 2001’s “Ten Most Significant Insurance Coverage Decisions.” Constine argued the case of Taurus Holdings v. USF&G, in which the Florida Supreme Court ruled, for the first time in that jurisdiction, that the phrase “arising out of”—a term widely used in policy exclusions— is not ambiguous and should be interpreted broadly.
Constine received a J.D. from University of Virginia School of Law, where he graduated in 1986, and received an A.B. from Harvard University in 1983. He is admitted to practice Washington, D.C. and Virginia.
