165718_bioimage

Kurt M. Mullen



Kurt Mullen is a commercial litigator with more than 15 years of experience in insurance-related litigation. He represents insurance companies and other financial services institutions, state insurance guaranty funds and a variety of medium- and large-sized businesses.

What do you focus on?

General commercial litigation

I represent a variety of  medium- and large-sized businesses in commercial disputes. This includes work in various courts across the Northeast, as well as in arbitration and other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

Insurance coverage and guaranty association issues

Insurance coverage issues—especially related to catastrophic losses, additional insured issues and bad faith claims—have been on the rise over the last several years. I devote a large part of my practice to counseling and representing clients in connection with these and other insurance coverage issues. And there continues to be significant litigation over the interpretation of state insurance guaranty association statutes and the extent to which general insurance law applies to these entities.

Appellate

I have argued in all levels of the Massachusetts appellate courts and the Connecticut Supreme Court, and have worked on appellate briefs in cases across New England and New Jersey.  

I also provide second opinions to clients who have received adverse rulings or judgments on the strength of their appellate agents.

What do you see on the horizon?

Increased data breaches and related state and federal regulatory changes have the potential to result in insurance coverage litigation, especially as the cyber insurance market continues to develop and mature.

Representative Appellate Cases

  • Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Berkshire Bank, 475 Mass. 839 (2016) (reversing trial court’s summary judgment ruling and holding that the Massachusetts guaranty fund is entitled to recover workers’ compensation benefits paid to claimant on behalf of high net worth insured).
  • Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association v. Drown, 314 Conn. 161 (2014) (holding an insurer’s breach of its duty to defend a medical malpractice suit before becoming insolvent does not bar the Connecticut guaranty association from contesting its obligation to pay a claim made under the insolvent insurer’s policy and that the underlying claim was barred by the policy’s vicarious liability exclusion).
  • Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 80 Mass. App. Ct (2011) (Reversing trial court’s summary judgment ruling and holding that additional insured endorsement to sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability insurance policy, providing coverage for additional parties “as required by contract, provided the contract is executed prior to loss,” required that the contracting parties have a signed, written contract in order for contractor and subcontractor to be covered as additional insureds under policy).

Other representative cases:

  • Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co., 566 F.3d 274 (2009) (Reversing district court’s judgment ruling excess insurer liable for cost of repairing and replacing insured’s work and holding that “following form” endorsement did not create new liability for excess insurer inconsistent with other basic provisions in the excess policy, including the “your product” and “your work” exclusions, which still operated to bar coverage for construction defect claim).

Publications

  • “Determining the Insurer’s Response” (with Gregory P. Deschenes), 1 New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide 11-1 (Mathew Bender & Co., Inc. 2007)
  • “The Differences and Similarities in Dealing with Primary vs. Excess Carriers” (with Gregory P. Deschenes), presented at the Mealey’s All Sums: Reallocation & Settlement Credits Conference (November 2006)
  • “Ethical Obligations and Out-of-State Arbitration,” ABA Commercial and Business Litigation Journal, (2004)

Presentations

  • “Veteran Litigators: A How-To,” NCIGF Legal Seminar, Denver, CO, June 27, 2019

Cooper Levenson, client ditch NJ racketeering claims

Law360 | November 27, 2016

The article covers recent developments in a case involving a New Jersey company’s lawsuit against Cummins Inc., a backup generator provider.  Boston commercial litigation partner Kurt Mullen is noted as representing Cummins in the lawsuit.

Mass. justices reverse bank's win against insurance fund

Law360 | November 02, 2016

Boston Commercial Litigation partners Greg Deschenes and Kurt Mullen, and Boston Government Investigations & White Collar Defense associate Charles Dell'Anno are mentioned as counsel successfully representing the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund in this article about a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision regarding whether the fund can recover workers’ compensation claims.

Contact

Kurt M. Mullen

Partner

Boston

Phone: 617-345-1113


Fax: 866-394-9156

Boston College Law School, J.D.

Northeastern University, B.S., summa cum laude

Massachusetts

Connecticut

New Jersey

New York

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Kurt is an elected Town Meeting Member in Needham, Massachusetts. He also represents Needham on the Regional Transportation Advisory Council, which provides public input on transportation planning issues to the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Boston Region. Kurt also is on the Board of Directors of Needham Bikes, Inc., a nonprofit community organization that promotes bicycle use for transportation and recreation.

Back to top