Patrick Hofer

Profil complet

Patrick Hofer is a trial and appellate litigator, representing clients in complex coverage disputes in courts nationwide for more than 30 years. He has successfully represented insurers in high-profile litigation matters, which have benefitted not only his clients, but insurers more broadly. Patrick has successfully represented multiple insurers, in trial courts and on appeal, in over fifty suits seeking coverage for business interruption loss related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He is recognized for his experience in the treatment of insurance rights in corporate mergers and reorganizations. Patrick litigates insurance coverage disputes involving mass torts, environmental claims, asbestos, construction defects, defective products, first-party property coverage, terrorism, and catastrophes.

A number of large insurance companies have retained Patrick to handle high profile, high exposure and legally significant cases in the environmental, mass tort, talc, asbestos, and related arenas. He obtained significant victories in the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of Ohio in cases determining how insurance rights are affected when a corporation’s identity is changed through spin-off or dissolution. 

Patrick is the Office Managing Partner of our Washington, DC office. 

Admissions

• Virginia
• District of Columbia
• Supreme Court of the United States
• US Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits
• US District Court for the District of Columbia
• US District Court for the Western District of Virginia

Education

• J.D., University of Virginia, 1986
• B.A., with distinction, University of Virginia, 1983

Expérience

• Obtained significant appellate ruling before the Sixth Circuit, holding that the insurer had no duty to defend opioid distribution claims.
• Obtained Eighth Circuit ruling under Minnesota law that insurer that issued liability policies to one of many predecessors of an asbestos product defendant owed a duty to defend only if an underlying complaint implicated the specific predecessor entity covered by the insurer, and not if the defendant were sued without specification of which predecessor’s asbestos products were at issue.
• Represented insurer in obtaining favorable ruling from the Eighth Circuit that, under Missouri law, a pollution exclusion excludes claims arising out of well water contaminated with naturally-occurring radioactive material.  The decision also held that the suit, filed by a class of claimants against insurers, seeking to recover a USD82 million class judgment the class had obtained against the insured, constituted a "class action" for purposes of removal to federal court under CAFA.
• In a case with nationwide implications, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that when determining whether a dissolved corporation is subject to suit, a court must give effect to the law of its state of incorporation, not forum state law, under the Full Faith and Credit and Due Process Clauses; claimants may not evade the bar of dissolution by seeking to appoint receiver to collect liability insurance as "assets," because insurance policies create no obligation to indemnify absent a judgment against the insured.
• Under Missouri law, a California appellate court held that insured’s settlement of USD 55 million class action without notice to or consent from excess insurer was not covered under excess insurance policy, and insurer did not need to demonstrate additional prejudice arising out of the settlement.
• Indiana Court of Appeals ruling affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer holding that over-15-year delay in giving notice to insurer of environmental claims was unreasonably late as a matter of law, and that insured failed to rebut presumption of prejudice to insurer.
• Prevailed in establishing that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was one "occurrence," not two, for insurance purposes.