Brent Brougher is a first chair trial lawyer with broad commercial litigation experience. He has successfully handled numerous jury and bench trials, mediations, arbitrations, and appeals. Mr. Brougher’s primary recent emphasis has been pursuing insurance coverage on behalf of corporate policyholders in complex, high-profile matters across the country.
As a member of the California and Georgia bars, Mr. Brougher has a national litigation practice representing entities of all sizes. Mr. Brougher’s recent emphasis has been on representing businesses seeking the recovery of insurance assets through negotiation, ADR proceedings, litigation, and trial. In addition, Mr. Brougher has a proven record of success in commercial litigation, including IP, technology, antitrust, commercial contract/fraud, and other commercial cases. Mr. Brougher’s clients are located throughout the United States, and he has handled matters in every U.S. geographic region, and abroad.
Mr. Brougher previously 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 was elevated to partner in 2001.
Mr. Brougher was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® in 2020 for Insurance Litigation and in 2021 and 2022 for Insurance Law and Insurance Litigation. He is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
Won a multi-million dollar jury verdict in federal district court in Cleveland, Ohio. Including defense costs awarded on appeal, obtained a $13.5 million insurance coverage judgment arising out of third party claims related to a failed real estate project near Orlando, Florida. See IMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2014 WL 3409044 (6th Cir. July 15, 2014).
Filed suit and negotiated settlements for insurance and indemnity arising out of class actions brought by former NCAA student-athletes alleging misappropriation of names and likenesses, including seminal case by Ed O’Bannon, former basketball player at UCLA. Among other things, we obtained an anti-suit injunction that was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit. See Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71 (11th Cir. 2013).
Obtained defense costs and insurance coverage for a settlement arising out of high-profile #MeToo movement case, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Filed multi-million dollar suit addressing insurance coverage under an Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) policy, resulting in settlement shortly before trial. IMG College, LLC, et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., Case No. CV 16 87077, in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Litigated and negotiated settlement addressing insurance coverage for third party claims in a large-scale pipeline project. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Latex Construction Co., Case No. 1:16-cv-04213-TCB (N.D. GA).
On behalf of the Atlanta Braves, filed suit and negotiated settlement for insurance benefits under a disability policy addressing injury sustained by former Braves pitcher Mike Hampton. Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., Case No. 1:09-CV-0403-RWS (N.D. GA).
Prevailed in AAA arbitration, including an award of attorneys’ fees, in technology implementation dispute for mobile telephone service provider.
Obtained defense verdict after 30 jury trial days, upheld on appeal, in $300 million accounting malpractice trial against national accounting firm. See Ischemia Research and Education Foundation v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, 2002 WL 31852879 (Dec. 20, 2002).
Counsel for national fast food franchisor and franchisees in an investigation of claims associated with fraudulent activity by the clients’ vendor, a major beverage company. The dispute received national media attention and clients secured a multi-million dollar settlement prior to litigation.
Litigated and negotiated settlements with national insurance broker and several major insurance carriers for alleged antitrust and related violations of Florida law related to “contingent” commissions. Office Depot, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Case No.: 502005CA004396, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida.
Litigation counsel for software developer in large theft of trade secrets case involving source code related to email attachment viewing technology used in handheld devices; case settled shortly before trial after defeating opponent’s summary judgment motion.
Won AAA arbitration on behalf of foodservice research and development company accused of breaching license agreement; arbitration panel dismissed plaintiff’s claims and awarded attorneys fees.
Counsel for large telecommunications provider in international arbitration alleging hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for breach of contract and related business torts; case settled after hearings.
Insights View All
In The News
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. (1990) Political Science
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
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.