Rob represents insurance companies on coverage matters. He advises insurers on insurance coverage interpretation and application, and drafts coverage opinions. A majority of Rob’s practice is devoted to prosecuting declaratory judgment actions and defending against coverage and bad faith lawsuits.
Rob’s coverage practice touches each of the Rocky Mountain States. In addition to Arizona, he regularly litigates before state and federal courts in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and other Western States. Rob vigorously defends his clients, the insurance companies. He works hard to protect his insurer-clients.
Rob fights to protect professionals accused of malpractice. He represents lawyers, insurance agents, accountants, and other professionals against claims and lawsuits leveled at them and their businesses. He takes pride in advocating for his clients, and vigorously fighting for them.
Rob is a trial attorney and an appellate attorney. He has handled several trials, and regularly drafts appellate briefs to Courts of Appeals and Supreme Courts in several States. He defends his insurer-clients and his professional-clients through trial and, where necessary, up on appeal.
Rob takes pride in representing his clients with excellence at all times, and with his eyes on the prize.
Outside the office, Rob remains as busy as he is in the office. Rob is the proud parent of three: two daughters and a son. He and his wife, April, spend their time raising their family and making memories together.
Speaking Engagements & Published Articles
- Faculty and Speaker, 2016 Arizona Insurance Law Institute, Insurance Coverage for Construction Defect Claims, State Bar of Arizona, Phoenix (February 2016)
- Faculty and Speaker, 2015 Arizona Insurance Law Institute, Claims Made Coverage, State Bar of Arizona, Phoenix (January 2015)
- Faculty and Speaker, Arizona Insurance Law, Auto Liability Coverage, State Bar of Arizona, Phoenix (January 2013)
- Co-author for Arizona section, "Professional Liability Insurance: A Compendium of State Law" published by the Defense Research Institute (October 2012)
- Faculty and Speaker, Arizona Insurance Law, Commercial General Liability Coverage, State Bar of Arizona, Phoenix (January 2012)
- Faculty and Speaker, Insurance Coverage Litigation, Defending the Insurance Contract, Law Review CLE, Phoenix (January 2012)
- Author, Insurance Coverage for Progressive Construction Defect Losses, ABA Insurance Coverage Litigation Newsletter (Winter 2008)
- Author, Case summaries for the CGL Reporter, published by IRMI (2005-2008)
- Author, The Effects of AEDPA and IIRIRA on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims for Failure to Advise Alien Defendants of Deportation Consequences of Pleading Guilty to an "Aggravated Felony", 2004 Utah L. Rev. 701, cited in the briefs leading to Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d. 284 (U.S. 2010)
- City of Phoenix v. First State Insurance Co., 2016 WL 4591906 (D.Ariz. 2016) (insurance carrier owed no coverage for $1.9 million in defense expenses and indemnity payments on underlying asbestos suit as insurance policies could not be construed as covering defense expenses and, as a matter of first impression, Arizona would follow the pro rata allocation method across policy periods, and reject the all sums approach).
- Colony Insurance Company v. Estate of Lakeisha Anderson, 2016 WL 796983 (Ariz. App. 2016) (holding that $2.2 million judgment against insured group home for death of resident fell outside the coverage of claims-made-and-reported policy in effect at time of death because claim was not reported during the policy period, further, death fell outside the coverage of the second claims-made-and-reported policy given the retroactive date).
- Nelson v. Navigator Insurance Company, 624 Fed.Appx. 599 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that general liability insurer did not provide coverage for $4.2 million judgment on spoliation of evidence suit under CGL Policy and Excess Policy because spoliation of evidence is for economic loss, not bodily injury or property damage, and the Insured’s subjective expectation of coverage for the suit did not rise to the level of objective reasonableness under the evidence presented).
- Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, et al. v. Lewis, M.D., et al., 898 F.Supp.2d 1132 (D.Ariz. 2012) (holding that general liability insurer did not have a duty to indemnify insured medical practice in eight underlying lawsuits for vicarious liability and negligent hiring, supervision and retention of cardiologist to the extent that the cardiologist groped and fondled the breasts of his female patients because such conduct, and all derivative theories of liability arising from such conduct, fell within the professional services exclusion).
- American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania v. United National Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2415540 (Ariz. App. 2012) (holding that settlement by client-insurer could not be undone by proposed intervenor-insurer as proposed intervenor-insurer did not seek timely intervention and lacked sufficient interest to merit intervention as of right).
- Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Jones, 695 F.Supp.2d 978 (D.Ariz. 2010) (motor vehicle exclusion precluded coverage for ATV accident on public street).
- Monterey Homes Arizona, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company, 212 P.3d 43 (Ariz. App. 2009) (holding that insurer should have been allowed to intervene to assert subrogation claim for attorney and expert fees).
- Tilley v. Delci, 220 Ariz. 233, 204 P.3d 1082 (App. 2009) (defendant motorist was entitled to summary judgment as plaintiff motorist failed to create genuine issue of material fact).
- Webb v. Gittlen, 217 Ariz. 363, 174 P.3d 275 (2008) (insurance agent not bound by Damron agreement).
- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, L.L.P. (2005-2008)
- Lundell & Lofgren, P.C. (2004-2005)
- Named to Southwest Rising Stars® list (2012-2016)
Federal Court Admissions
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2008
United States District Court, District of Arizona, 2006
United States District Court, District of Utah, 2004