Menu Search through site content What are you looking for?

Patrick Hofer



Patrick Hofer

Patrick Hofer


Go to next section

Profile & Experience

Regions covered
Full Profile

Patrick Hofer is a trial and appellate litigator, representing clients in courts nationwide for more than 30 years. He represents insurers in complex coverage disputes. Patrick is recognized for his experience in the treatment of insurance rights in corporate mergers and reorganizations. He 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 was retained by two large insurance clients to coordinate response to dozens of cases seeking business interruption loss arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic.


  • 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


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

Patrick has achieved a large number of high profile litigation successes that have benefitted not only his clients, but insurers more broadly. Patrick’s list of litigation successes include:

  • Continental Ins. Co. v. Daikin Applied Americas Inc., 998 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 2021). 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.
  • Williams v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2017) 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 an $82 million class judgment the class had obtained against the insured, constituted a "class action" for purposes of removal to federal court under CAFA.
  • In re: All Cases Against Sager Corporation, 132 Ohio. St. 3d 5 (2012). In case with nationwide implications, 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.
  • Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, No. G0506089 (Cal. App. 2016). Under Missouri law, insured’s settlement of $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.
  • P.R. Mallory & Co. v. American Cas. Co., 920 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. App. 2010). Affirming summary judgment in favor of 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.
  • World Trade Center Properties, L.L.C. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 345 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2003), aff’g 222 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Prevailed in establishing that September 11 attack on World Trade Center was one "occurrence," not two, for insurance purposes.


  • Insurance & Reinsurance



  • Commercial Disputes