D'Amato & Lynch Says Its Insurer Won't Cover Suit Over Misplaced $1 Million
The coverage decision could increase the pressure on the Manhattan law firm, whose website went offline earlier this year amid a shrinking attorney head count and other litigation.
November 14, 2019 at 05:36 PM
4 minute read
Manhattan law firm D'Amato & Lynch said in recent court filings that its own legal malpractice insurer has refused to cover its dispute with an insurance company over a $1 million check that it deposited in the wrong bank account.
Meanwhile, the insurance company that brought suit over the $1 million check, First Mercury Insurance Co., is seeking to put the firm in the hands of a receiver, asking for a constructive trust to be imposed over its assets and those of Luke Lynch Jr., who is described as the firm's general partner.
The developments mark the latest challenges for D'Amato & Lynch, which was founded in 1969 by George D'Amato and eventually grew to nearly 100 lawyers. As Law.com has reported, the firm's head count has fallen steadily over the years, its website is no longer online, and it was sued earlier this year by its former landlord over allegedly unpaid rent.
A decision by D'Amato & Lynch's unnamed insurer not to fund its defense in the litigation over the $1 million check could put even more pressure on the firm. (Lynch said in an affidavit that the insurer's coverage decision was erroneous.)
The litigation over the check was filed in September by First Mercury and its claims manager Riverstone, which had hired D'Amato & Lynch to defend First Mercury policyholders in personal injury lawsuits,
The September lawsuit claims D'Amato & Lynch deposited a $1 million check into the firm's operating account even though the funds were meant to go into its trust account and ultimately pay a litigant who had sued one of First Mercury's insureds.
First Mercury said Lynch's brother, whose role at the firm could not be confirmed, admitted the money flowed into the wrong account. The insurance company also claims the firm's error and its refusal to refund the money violates New York law and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
"D'Amato & Lynch's commingling of $1 million … in the face of the attorney employee or limited partner abandonment of D'Amato & Lynch demonstrates that it is not profitable, cannot pay its bills [and] is in imminent danger of insolvency," First Mercury's lawyer, Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, wrote in a brief that seeks a receiver for the firm.
First Mercury has said in court papers that D'Amato & Lynch signed on in 2017 to be national coordinating counsel in the wide variety of cases—personal injury suits, mostly—faced by its insureds. The firm can't fulfill the deal anymore, however, partly because it doesn't have enough manpower, according to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are also seeking default judgments against Lynch, the firm and Michael Haig, identified as the firm's comptroller. Three other defendants, attorneys Robert Lang, Arturo Boutin and David Boyar, have been given extra time to respond, and Lynch and the firm, represented by a team from Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, have sought a similar extension.
For its part, D'Amato & Lynch is seeking to send the case brought the insurance company to mediation or arbitration.
The law firm has said in filings this week that the 2017 agreement's "broad, multi-tiered dispute resolution clause" requires the dispute to be resolved out of court. Lynch is also a beneficiary of that agreement, his lawyers argued, and the case should be stayed in the meantime.
Howard Jacobowitz of Vouté, Lohrfink, Magro & McAndrew, who represents Boutin, said the allegations against his client "are not true." David Mollon, who represents Lang, said his client would vigorously fight the suit, saying, "none of the allegations contained in his lawsuit have anything to do with my client."
Bluestone, First Mercury's lawyer, declined to comment Thursday, and Lynch and his lawyer Richard Schoenstein of Tarter Krinsky didn't respond to comment requests. Stewart Lee Karlin, who represents Boyar, declined to comment, and contact information for Haig or any lawyer he may have retained couldn't be found.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Stroock Files: The Journey Through Lateral Exits, Merger Talks and Dissolution
Hodgson Russ, Freeman Mathis & Gary Divvy Up Laterals From Dissolving Litigation Boutique
5 minute read'Everyone Was in the Dark': For Stroock Staff, No Communication, No Jobs
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250