Skip to main content
Home
Home

Michael T. Sharkey

Profile photo for Michael T. Sharkey
Profile photo for Michael T. Sharkey
Partner

Michael T. Sharkey

Michael represents policyholders in insurance coverage disputes nationwide.

Michael Sharkey assists clients on a range of insurance litigation issues, including alleged products liability, environmental contamination, directors and officers liability, asbestos bodily injury and property damage, trademark infringement, and defamation. As counsel to policyholders, Michael has participated in all phases of litigation and has briefed appeals to state supreme courts and state and federal appellate courts.

Before a claim arises, Michael advises clients on the scope of insurance coverage under their existing or proposed policies and suggests possible improvements to seek at renewal. Michael also guides clients on insurance issues pertaining to corporate transactions.

Additionally, he counsels clients proactively on the drafting and interplay of insurance and indemnification provisions in contracts, including construction contracts, supplier and service agreements, and corporate transactions.

Education & Credentials

Education

  • Yale Law School, J.D., 1994
  • Yale University, B.A., summa cum laude, 1991

Bar and Court Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Related Employment

  • Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Washington, D.C., Partner
  • Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, LLP, Partner

Professional Recognition

  • Listed in Washington D.C. Super Lawyers, 2016-2024

  • Listed in Best Lawyers in America: Insurance Law, 2015-2024

  • Listed in Expert Guides, “Insurance and Reinsurance,” 2015-2021

Impact

Professional Leadership

  • The Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin, Board of Editors, 2004-2016
  • American Bar Association
  • Maryland State Bar Association

Professional Experience

Recent Representative Experience

  • Lead counsel for Under Armour in litigation brought by 10 insurance companies that had denied coverage under directors and officers liability insurance policies. The court recently addressed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the insurance companies’ declaratory judgment claims with prejudice and entering judgment in favor of Under Armour’s claim for coverage. Endurance Am. Ins. Co. v. Under Armour, Inc., C.A. No. RDB-22-2481, 2024 WL 1640565 (D. Md. Apr. 15, 2024).
  • Lead counsel for Kinross Gold, USA, Inc. in an action addressing general liability insurance coverage for the settlement of an underlying multidistrict litigation arising out of a major release of water with a high metal content from a mine in the same mountain as a former gold mine owned by a Kinross subsidiary, Sunnyside Gold. The coverage litigation settled after the court granted summary judgment in favor of Kinross on several key issues. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy N. B0509DR636715 v. Kinross Gold, USA, Inc., Case No. 2021CV31126, Order Re: Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Colo. Dist. Jan. 23, 2024); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy N. B0509DR636715 v. Kinross Gold, USA, Inc., Case No. 2021CV31126, Order (Colo. Dist. Mar. 3, 2024).
  • Represented a software company seeking coverage under an errors and omissions insurance policy for the settlement of an underlying dispute. The coverage litigation settled after the court denied the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment on the continuous cover clause and an exclusion for liquidated damages. This was the first decision by a U.S. court interpreting a continuous cover clause, which excuses late notice under a claims-made policy under certain circumstances. Ventech Solutions, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, C.A. No. N20C-06-014 MMJ CCLD, 2023 WL 315331 (Del. Super. Jan. 4, 2023).
  • Lead counsel for a guitar manufacturer in an insurance coverage action seeking coverage for an underlying trademark infringement litigation. The coverage litigation settled after the court ruled that the underlying action triggered a full duty to defend under the policies at issue and denied the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment on the duty to indemnify and bad faith. Allied Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-00617-ALM, 2022 WL 3568482 (E.D. Tex. August 18, 2022).
  • Negotiated several multimillion-dollar recoveries under representation and warranty insurance policies in recent years for coverage of claims arising out of breaches of representations in mergers and acquisitions transactions.

Throughout his career, Michael has obtained numerous significant or precedent-setting rulings on key insurance coverage issues on behalf of policyholder clients. These include:

  • Successfully briefed or argued precedent-setting decisions favorable to policyholders on the key issue of allocation of long-term losses in several jurisdictions. See, e.g., Westport Ins. Corp. v. Appleton Paper Inc., 787 N.W.2d 894 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010); Hercules, Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., 784 A.2d 481 (Del. 2001); National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021); NorthWestern Energy v. AEGIS Ltd., Civ. 07-1174 (S.D. Cir. Ct. July 29, 2010); see also Plastics Eng’g Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 759 N.W.2d 613 (Wis. 2008) (amicus brief).
  • Obtained favorable results for many clients facing insurance company attempts to void coverage based on alleged misrepresentations in the application. Among other favorable rulings is the decision in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. ERC Frankona Ruckversicherungs-AG, No. 03-2420 (JGP), 2005 WL 4708212 (D.D.C. 2005), which held that the insurance company must honor its obligations on the duty to indemnify while its action to void the policy is pending. While previous decisions had applied this rule to the duty to defend, this is believed to be the first decision extending the rule to an insurance company’s duty to indemnify. Michael also has written and spoken extensively on this topic.
  • Successfully defeated efforts by insurance companies to shield their claims files and activities under the guise of attorney-client privilege or work product protection. See, e.g., NorthWestern Energy v. AEGIS Ltd., Civ. 07-1174 (S.D. Cir. Ct. June 15, 2011); Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Under Armour, Inc., 537 F. Supp. 2d 761 (D. Md. 2008) see also St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Under Armour, Inc., Civil No. 22-1175-BAH (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2023) (defeated insurance company efforts to compel discovery of the policyholder’s privileged communications from the underlying action).
Home
Jump back to top