Jared Clapper

Profil complet

Jared Clapper is an experienced coverage litigator, having secured numerous summary judgments, dismissals, and appellate victories on behalf of his clients, both directly and by assisting other law firms with preparation of motions. He regularly advises insurers and litigates complex and high-risk matters involving first-party and third-party claims, product defects, construction defects and accidents, opioids, long-tail claims, personal and advertising injury claims, commercial transportation, workers’ compensation, and professional liability claims. Jared also frequently advises insurers on bad faith claims and litigates them. Jared’s practice involves actions both in trial courts and on appeal.

Jared frequently speaks on a variety of insurance coverage-related topics and has authored articles in leading insurance industry publications.

Admissions

• Illinois
• Tennessee
• US Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Tenth Circuits
• US District Courts for the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of Illinois
• US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
• US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
• US District Court for the District of Colorado

Education

• J.D., magna cum laude, University of Illinois, 2007
• B.A., magna cum laude, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 2004

Expérience

• Judgment on the pleadings on the basis that: (1) the underlying lawsuit’s allegations of disparagement did not qualify as the “advertising injury” offense of slander or libel because the disparagement was of a technology that was to be used in a product, not of a product itself; and (2) the underlying lawsuit’s allegations that the policyholder’s own product met an industry group’s testing standards by using a “golden sample” rather than the actual product being sold, did not qualify as the “advertising injury” offense of “use of another’s advertising idea” because the testing standard was not the plaintiff’s advertising idea. Case No. 3:24-cv-00230-LMM (N.D. Ga. Dec. 19, 2025) (Southwire Company, LLC). ¹

• Judgment on the pleadings and affirmance on appeal in case where policyholder alleged that Civil Authority coverage applied to cover business income losses due to government orders limiting access to its customers’ facilities. Case No. 22-2-01530-6-SEA (King Cnty. Wash. Sup. Ct. Mar. 31, 2023) aff’d 2024 WL 2744058 (Wash. Ct. App. May 28, 2024) (Quest Diagnostics). 

• Motion to transfer granted, policyholder’s motion to remand denied on the basis that snap removal is proper in Illinois, and judgment on the pleadings entered on the basis that presence of COVID-19 and resulting government orders did not constitute direct physical loss of or damage to property and Microorganisms Exclusion barred coverage. 518 F. Supp. 3d 1248 (S.D. Ill. 2021); 2022 WL 4591486 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2022) (Knightsbridge Management).

• Summary judgment and affirmance on appeal holding that CGL insurer had no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify opioid distributor against 77 underlying lawsuits filed mostly by government entities alleging that the distributor’s improper distribution of opioids injured people and caused the entities to incur various increased costs like additional police and ambulance services and economic losses like lost tax revenue and diminished property values. 2021 WL 1794754 (W.D. Ky. May 5, 2021) reconsideration denied 2021 WL 4513715 (Oct. 1, 2021) aff’d —F.4th —, 2023 WL 179766 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 2023) (Quest Pharmaceuticals).
• Summary judgment and affirmance on appeal holding that the Auto Business Exclusion and Suspended License Exclusion barred coverage for auto auction and its employee under primary and excess policy issued to auto dealership following incident where auto auction employee accelerated uncontrollably through crowed, injuring and killing multiple people. 2021 WL 3054993 (D. Mass. July 20, 2021) aff’d 53 F.4th 730 (1st Cir. 2022) (Hartwell).
• Summary judgment on the basis that D&O Policy’s Employment Practices Liability Coverage extension did not cover wrongful termination judgment because the judgment debtor stopped being a subsidiary of the named insured a month before the wrongful termination, requirement of a claim against an insured person was not met, and the bad faith and Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act claims failed. 2022 WL 684377 (D. Mont. Mar. 8, 2022) (Dunluck).
• Dismissal of lawsuit filed by 26 plaintiffs against 15 insurer-defendants based on improper joinder. No. 2021-L-00823 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Apr. 11, 2022) appeal dismissed (25 W. Hubbard).
• Denial of policyholder’s motion to remand on the basis that the 30-day rule for removal applies only if a complaint is clear on its face that a case is removable and refusing to abstain from exercising jurisdiction based on development of substantial body of case law in federal courts on the issues in this case and judgment on the pleadings entered on the basis that the presence of COVID-19 and resulting government orders did not constitute direct physical loss of or damage to property. Case No. 22-243, ECF 34 (E.D. Pa. May 31, 2022); 2023 WL 2351696 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2023) (Goodman Management).
• Dismissal of business interruption lawsuit on the basis that the insured could not plead direct physical loss of or damage to property, rejecting argument that policy language was distinguishable from appellate authority due to use of phrase “risks of” direct physical loss. Case No. 2021-CH-01177 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. May 16, 2022) appeal dismissed (Corelle Brands).
• Denial of policyholder’s petition for appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court of the Circuit Court’s dismissal of lawsuit seeking business income losses due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and resulting government orders based on the lack of direct physical loss of or damage to property and the policy’s contamination exclusion. 2022 WL 1124493 (Va. Apr. 14, 2022) (Crescent Hotels).
• Dismissal of business interruption lawsuit and bad faith claim by restaurant group on the basis that the complaint failed to plead direct physical loss of or damage to property, Decontamination Costs, or Civil or Military Authority coverage. Case No. 21-CH-01299 (Ill. Cir. Ct.  Dec. 23, 2021) (Hooters).
• Severance of lawsuit filed by 7 plaintiffs against 4 insurer-defendants based on improper joinder, Case No. BER-L-7036-20 (N.J. Super. Ct. Oct. 13, 2021) (Wyckoff), which then led to voluntary dismissal with prejudice after removal of severed action. Case No. 21-cv-19346 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2021) (Taste Buds).
• Judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the that the SARS-CoV-2 virus did not cause direct physical loss of or damage to clothing store’s property, that the Tenants Prohibited Access coverage was not implicated, that the Contamination Exclusion barred coverage, that an Amendatory Endorsement – Louisiana did not apply outside of Louisiana, and that Section 155 claim failed. 2021 WL 6776241 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Nov. 10, 2021) (Aritzia).
• Judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the SARS-CoV-2 virus did not cause direct physical loss of or damage to restaurant group’s property and that Microorganisms Exclusion barred coverage and did not render Microorganisms Coverage illusory. 2021 WL 6776242 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 12, 2021) (Bottleneck). Obtained affirmance on appeal. 2022 IL App (1st) 211462-U.
• Dismissal of business interruption lawsuit by restaurant group on the basis that the Contamination Exclusion barred coverage and the Amendatory Endorsement – Louisiana did not apply nationally to remove the word “virus” from the exclusion. 2021 WL 2007870 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. Apr. 19, 2021) (Firebirds). Obtained affirmance on appeal—the first appellate ruling in the country on this issue.  2022 IL App (1st) 210558.
• Summary judgment affirmed in favor of insurer in North Carolina Court of Appeals concerning the applicable trigger of coverage, method of allocation, and estoppel argument relative to various lawsuits alleging exposure to a chemical in the insured's product cause leukemia. 850 S.E.2d 624 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020) (Radiator Specialty).
• Summary judgment holding that CGL coverage part of client's primary OCIP policy, provided only a single USD 5 million completed-operations aggregate liability limit, regardless how many projects sustained damage; defeated argument that USD 5 million aggregate limit was owed for each of 71 scheduled projects. Obtained affirmance on appeal. 213 F. Supp. 3d 1333 (D. Colo. 2016), aff'd, 734 F. App'x 586 (10th Cir. 2018) (Intrawest).
• Dismissal of complaint against excess insurer seeking coverage for lawsuit alleging that insured misrepresented its insurance to the underlying plaintiffs to induce them to settle for less than their damages. Case No. 17-cv-405 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2018) (Southern Illinois Asphalt).
• Awarded costs and motion to review taxation of costs granted, tripling client's recovery. 2017 WL 4163352 (D. Colo. Sept. 19, 2017) (Intrawest).
• Summary judgment for excess insurer less than four months after moving to intervene in primary insurer's declaratory judgment action when court found that driver facing USD 14 million in underlying judgments did not qualify as an "insured" under an auto dealership's policy, due to the fact that the dealership did not own the car at the time of the accident, despite lack of sale documentation before the accident. Obtained affirmance on appeal. 2015 WL 874371 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 27, 2015) (Winton).  Obtained affirmance on appeal 818 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2016).
• Partial summary judgment on late-notice and allocation arguments in Colorado construction-defect case, leading to favorable settlement for excess insurer.  Case No. 2011-CV-2997 (Dist. Ct. Denver Cnty. Colo. Feb. 1, 2013) (LNC Communities).

Presentations

• Presenter, “Resolving Issues Arising Out of Multiple Claims That Exceed Policy Limits," Chicago, January 2023
• Presenter, “Introduction to US Coverage Litigation,” London, October 2022
• Presenter, “Bad Faith Claims – The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, and the Sneaky,” Hartford, June 2022
• Creator and Presenter, “Persuasive Brief Writing,” Chicago, May 2022
• Co-Creator and Presenter, “Underwriter Depositions in US Litigation – Practicalities and Pitfalls,” Virtual, May 2022
• Presenter, “Litigating in North America: An Insurer’s Guide to U.S. Courts,” London, April 2022
• Presenter, “Covid Litigation and Class Actions,” Virtual, July 2021
• Presenter, "Underwriting Issues in Litigation," New York Training Seminar, 2019
• Presenter, "Something Doesn't Taste Right! CGL Coverage in the Context of Food Product Claims," Houston Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Houston, Texas, June 2017
• Presenter, "Bad Faith and Insurance Practices," New Jersey Continuing Legal Education Seminar, Warren, New Jersey, 2016-2019

Publications

• "An Integration Clause Does Not Prohibit Consideration of All Parts of a Multi-Document Insurance Contract to Harmonize Facial Contradictions," Insurance Insights, 2018
• Co-Author, "Loss of Perspective: How Courts Expanded Loss of Use Property Damage Coverage Beyond Damages Stemming From a Complete Inability to Use Property," DRI Covered Events, July 2017​

^[1] Pursuant to certain client agreement, client names are not included in these bio citations.