Marc has nearly 20 years’ experience counseling and representing insurers in connection with complex coverage matters arising under a wide variety of professional liability policies, as well as matters involving employment practices liability claims and first-party cyber exposures.

Marc represents insurers in coverage litigation in federal and state courts across the country, including litigation involving allegations of bad faith and seeking extra-contractual and statutory damages.  He counsels insurers on issues related a broad array of professional liability lines of coverage, including private and public company directors and officers, technology, media, lawyers and architects and engineers lines.  Marc advises clients with respect to matters arising under crime policies and fidelity bonds, including claims and losses resulting from traditional and cyber-based theft and fraud.  He assists insurance carriers with developing, drafting and revising policies that provide first-party and third-party coverage for business in the technology, banking, health and media sectors.  Marc serves as coverage and monitoring counsel in connection with claims and losses arising under various types of professional liability, employment practices liability and crime policies, including claims involving securities fraud, technology-based products and services, computer network security breaches, data loss, online and offline media content activities, workplace torts and discrimination and legal and medical malpractice.

Marc has obtained numerous favorable results for insurers over the years, including:

• Obtained summary judgment ruling in favor of insurer in Virginia federal court, holding that prior knowledge exclusions in architects and engineers professional liability policy barred coverage.  ChemTreat, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 2020 WL 5637961 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2020).

• Obtained favorable summary judgment ruling in Florida federal court, holding that a lawsuit against arising out of three alleged errors constituted a single “claim” under consecutive architects and engineers policies. Nova Southeastern Univ., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 2019 WL 7820594 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2019).

• Obtained summary judgment in California federal court that assault and battery exclusion in events policy was unambiguous as a matter of law and barred coverage for a negligence action arising from a stabbing that occurred at the insured event. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Policy No. EH7713140 v. WorldOne Presents, LLC, 2019 WL 4747708 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019).

• Obtained summary judgment in Florida federal court determining that quality of services exclusion in a technology errors and omissions policy barred coverage for a lawsuit arising out of the insured online auction service’s alleged misrepresentations concerning the safety and reliability of its auctions. Equipmentfacts, LLC v. Beazley Ins. Co., 2016 WL 119651 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2017).

• Obtained summary judgment for insurer, holding that business enterprise, trust and investment advice exclusions in a lawyer’s professional liability policy barred coverage for claim against insured attorney for alleged self-dealing and related misconduct. Following oral argument, appellate court affirmed summary judgment ruling and rejected insured’s argument that the district court judge should have recused himself.Christensen v. Darwin Nat’l Assurance Co., 2014 WL 1628133 (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2014), aff’d 2016 WL 1128033 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2016).

• Obtained Fifth Circuit reversal of adverse district court decision finding coverage under a lawyer’s professional liability policy. The appellate court concluded that claim against insured lawyer for restitution of funds paid as part of a settlement fraudulently induced by his client did not trigger coverage because it did not “arise out of an act or omission . . . in [the lawyer’s] rendering of or failure to render legal services.” Edwards v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 841 F.3d. 360 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2016).

• Obtained summary judgment for insurer on grounds that (i) amounts sought by government agency from insured did not constitute covered “loss” under the policy, because such amounts represented amounts owed under an express written contract, and (ii) claim for bad faith could not be sustained where insurer reasonably relied on terms of policy to deny coverage. Appellate court affirmed summary judgment ruling and upheld district court’s refusal to alter or amend the judgment. Singletary v. Beazley Ins. Co., Inc., 2013 WL 6850147 (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2013), aff’d 585 Fed. App’x 177 (4^th Oct. 27, 2014).

Marc has been named one of DC’s “Super Lawyers” for Insurance Coverage by Super Lawyers magazine (2016-2019).  He also was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (1999-2002).  In that role, he investigated, litigated, tried and argued numerous criminal cases on behalf of the United States at the grand jury stage, the motions phase, at trial and on appeal in both federal and local courts.