Timothy (Tim) Larsen represents the insurance industry in litigation involving property and liability insurance coverage matters, bad faith and unfair claims settlement practices, class actions and appeals. He routinely litigates high-exposure claims arising from a wide variety of insurance lines, including commercial property, business interruption and extra expense; general liability and homeowners. Tim has extensive experience handling lawsuits asserting claims for extra contractual damages. He has won pre-trial dismissals of numerous property and liability insurance claims, as well as bad faith lawsuits in both state and federal courts.
Tim previously worked for a large law firm, where he litigated insurance coverage disputes, class actions and appeals.
Tim volunteers as a pro bono attorney for indigent litigants in the US District Court.
US District Court for the District of Connecticut
J.D., University of Connecticut School of Law, 2016
B.A., cum laude, Boston University, 2012
American Bar Association
Defense Research Institute
Obtained summary judgment for an insurer who argued that the progressive deterioration and cracking of foundation walls caused by oxidation of minerals in the concrete was not an “abrupt falling down or caving in,” as required by the insurer’s policy.
Obtained summary judgment ruling in a commercial property insurance and unfair claims settlement practices case from the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This case involved a claim for extra expense coverage for wages paid to salaried employees for their remediation efforts during the period of restoration following a loss. The court granted summary judgment because the additional payments sought by the plaintiff did not fall within the policy’s grant of coverage and the plaintiff’s bad faith and Mass. Gen. L. Chapter 93A claims failed as a matter of law.
Obtained summary judgment ruling from the Connecticut Superior Court in a property insurance and unfair claims settlement practices case which involved a claim for “collapse” coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy. The primary issue in this case was the appropriate trigger of coverage under a first-party property insurance policy in a progressive loss scenario. The court adopted a manifestation trigger, under which the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred by the policy’s one-year suit limitation provision or, alternatively, the plaintiffs failed to show that their alleged loss manifested during the relevant policy periods.
Contributing author, FDCC 2018 Claims Professional Desk Reference, Connecticut Section
Contributing author, TIPS 2018 Recent Developments in Property Insurance Coverage Litigation, Business Interruption & Civil Authority Section