Practice Groups

Insurance Coverage

Insurance coverage disputes are common and complex. Bassford Remele has broad, national experience representing major insurers in all claims. Before a lawsuit even begins, we lend analysis and investigation assistance, counsel as to risks, and design creative settlements. Once litigation begins, we offer unparalleled trial experience. We have represented insurers in some of Minnesota’s largest insurance-coverage cases, frequently serving as liaison counsel in multi-defendant lawsuits.

Our team is well respected and recognized for its deep knowledge of, and role in actively shaping, insurance law in Minnesota and beyond. With more than 100 years of experience behind us, we have taken issues through summary judgment, trial, and appeal in both state and federal courts, acquiring keen insight into nearly all insurance areas — including automobile, general liability, D&O, professional liability, environmental, homeowners and property, sexual misconduct, and more.

We pride ourselves on staying abreast of the latest issues and industry trends. You will find members of our team regularly lecturing at both state and national levels and publishing updates to clients with of-the-moment legal developments.

Representative Cases

Currently representing multiple insurers in coverage litigation arising out of sexual abuse claims against, and bankruptcy filings by, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Diocese of Duluth, and Diocese of New Ulm.

Represented an insurer in district court and on appeal, obtaining a favorable decision where choice-of-law factors required the application of Kentucky law so UIM coverage was not required. Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hegel, 847 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2017).

Represented an insurer in district court and on appeal, winning summary judgment and finding that no sexual misconduct coverage was available to a sexual abuser. Clifford v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F. App'x 293 (6th Cir. 2016).

Represented an insurer in district court and on appeal, obtaining a decision that the named insured was not entitled to coverage for legal expenses incurred when intervening and pursuing its own claims against the plaintiff in a lawsuit against another insured. Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ma'Afu, 657 F. App'x 747 (10th Cir. 2016).

Represented an insurer in district court, obtaining a decision dismissing a demand for an appraisal based on the policy’s suit limitation provision.

Represented an insurer in district court, winning summary judgment in a case involving a tractor accident that was not covered under a farm policy because the road was not an insured location and the insured’s grandson (the driver) was not acting within the scope of any employment. Clark v. Farmers Union Mut. Ins., 872 N.W.2d 620 (N.D. 2015).


2021 Metropolitan Tier 1 Firm in the area of Insurance Law