Brent Brougher pursues insurance coverage on behalf of policyholders in complex, high-profile matters in jurisdictions across the country. Mr. Brougher has an extensive background in this area, and in other commercial litigation and arbitration.
Mr. Brougher’s primary client emphasis is on insured businesses. He represents clients in lawsuits and alternative dispute resolution proceedings seeking insurance recovery on various lines of business, including commercial general liability policies, excess policies, directors and officers policies, errors and omissions policies, and other property, liability, employee, disability and insurance policies. Mr. Brougher’s clients are located throughout the United States, and he has handled matters in every geographic region in the U.S. and abroad.
Mr. Brougher served as Co-Team Leader of the firm’s Insurance Recovery Practice. Before joining the firm, Mr. Brougher was a partner in the San Francisco office of a national, San Francisco-based firm, where he served as Office Chair of the Recruitment Committee. He was named a 2008 Georgia "Rising Star" in the area of Business Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine and is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.
Served as lead counsel representing a national abatement company in its effort to secure insurance coverage for an explosion and fire allegedly attributed to a "negative air machine" sourced from Canada that seriously injured two individuals in Southern California and for which a multimillion dollar lawsuit was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. We successfully secured full coverage for the client and its affiliates from numerous local and foreign carriers, thereby avoiding a trial in the underlying matter.
The firm served as lead counsel representing a research and development company serving the food industry in its declaratory judgment action to terminate a technology license agreement with a food service equipment manufacturer. A Dallas-based arbitration tribunal awarded termination of the license agreement and a monetary award to the client after a two-week arbitral hearing.
After our client entered into an “amnesty” agreement with the Justice Department that obligated our client and its directors and officers to cooperate with an investigation of possible Sherman Act violations involving alleged bid rigging, we filed suit against the directors and officers liability insurance carrier to recover the significant costs incurred in responding to a grand jury subpoena issued as part of the government’s investigation. Following a ruling by the trial court holding that the grand jury subpoena and the ensuing investigation could be construed as an “administrative or regulatory proceeding” and hence a “claim” against the insured directors and officers of the company, the matter settled. Servidyne, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., No. 1:07-cv-96-TCB (N.D. Ga. November 4, 2007).
Successfully represented a financial services company in a lawsuit regarding the enforceability of an arbitration provision contained in a contract ceding worker’s compensation losses.
Successfully represented a financial services company in a dispute over the validity and enforceability of a contract to reinsure workers' compensation carve-out losses.
Successfully represented a large grocery chain in a bad faith suit to secure benefits under its commercial general liability policy for the cost of defense and indemnity in an underlying class action arising out of alleged food contamination. This case settled favorably on the first day of trial.
Successfully represented a national accounting firm in a 10-week accounting malpractice jury trial in which the plaintiff alleged $300 million in damages. The trial court granted non-suit, which was upheld on appeal.
The firm served as lead counsel in representing the Atlanta Braves in its effort to recover benefits under a disability insurance policy compensating the Braves for time that former pitcher Mike Hampton was "disabled" by injury. Hartford Life, the carrier under the insurance policy, had paid the Braves for the time that Hampton missed from 2005 through 2007, but took the position that Hampton's left torn pectoral muscle–sustained while warming up in the bullpen minutes before his first start during the first week of the 2008 season–was not covered under the policy because it was unrelated to his prior arm injuries. We brought suit against Hartford Life in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia. After some discovery and a mediation, the case settled on a confidential basis.
Successfully represented a semiconductor chip manufacturer in a bad faith insurance coverage lawsuit arising out of a toxic tort putative class action brought against the manufacturer, in which the manufacturer sought coverage under its worker’s compensation / employee liability policy. The case included a published California opinion regarding the mandatory recusal of a trial judge. The matter settled favorably before trial.
The firm served as lead counsel for a Georgia-based software developer in a factually complex theft of trade secrets case involving the copying and misappropriation of source code files relating to the e-mail attachment viewing technology used in handheld devices. Suit was filed on behalf of software developer in October 2003, alleging claims against competitors, and former executives of competitor for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was defeated, and developer successfully moved to compel production of defendants’ source code pertaining to the technology in question, and defeated defendants' omnibus motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. The case settled for a confidential amount shortly before a three-week trial was scheduled to begin.
The firm served as lead counsel in representing Interface Flooring Systems, Inc. and affiliated entities (Interface), the world’s leading producer of soft-surfaced modular floor coverings (carpet tiles), against Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford) in an important and complex insurance coverage case. We filed suit seeking millions in damages for Hartford’s refusal to defend or indemnify our client under commercial general liability policies with respect to several lawsuits across the country alleging that the carpet tiles and the manner of their installation were defective, leading to damage to concrete slabs and an unpleasant odor in buildings. Following the successful resolution of the underlying cases which we also handled, our client received favorable rulings with respect to a motion to disqualify counsel, and on important discovery issues, including orders compelling Hartford to produce certain underwriting and claims documents. The case then settled on a confidential basis shortly thereafter in June 2008. Interface, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 1:05-CV-02079TCB (N.D. Ga. filed Aug. 10, 2005).
The firm served as lead counsel representing BellSouth, an international telecommunications provider, in an investment arbitration before three distinguished international arbitrators, alleging billions in damages in connection with the alleged right to exercise a stock put. The matter resolved favorably after phase one of the arbitral hearings in Miami, Florida and Washington, D.C.
Successfully represented one of the nation's largest fast food franchisors and its franchisees in an investigation of claims associated with a fraudulent marketing test conducted by the client's vendor, a major beverage company. The case received national media attention and the client secured a multimillion dollar settlement prior to initializing litigation as a result of our efforts.
The firm served as lead counsel in litigation against our client’s insurance broker and several major insurance carriers, including AIG, Travelers, Zurich and ACE, alleging that various agreements between the carriers and the broker providing for payment of so-called “back end” or “contingent” commissions violated Florida law. The lawsuit included claims for breach of fiduciary duty, RICO, antitrust conspiracy and other Florida
Insights View All
In The News
In The News
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, J.D. (1993) cum laude
University of California at Los Angeles, B.A., Political Science (1990)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Hastings Law Journal, Former Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.