Our Website Uses Cookies 

We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website.

For more information, please contact us or consult our Privacy Notice.

Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.

We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.

This page has been added to your binder.

Cléa Liquard has played significant roles in insurance coverage disputes, commercial and mass tort litigation, and appellate matters. With responsibilities ranging from negotiation to mediation to drafting of dispositive motions, Ms. Liquard has developed a sophisticated understanding of state and federal law including insurance law, U.S. and foreign financial regulations, and defense of multistate mass tort litigation.

  • Counsel for a major pharmaceutical distributor in a series of lawsuits brought by municipal and county governments alleging that the company contributed to a national epidemic of opioid addiction.
  • Represented S&P Global in connection with coverage for litigation arising out of credit ratings issued in the mid-2000’s.
  • Providing coverage advice to hedge fund under investment management policies for various claims.
  • Providing coverage guidance to Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia under multi-media policies for licensing disputes.
  • Represented controlling shareholders of public company regarding coverage under management liability policies for costs incurred in connection with shareholder derivative litigation.
  • Represented art auction house in mediation and settlement in connection with coverage under professional liability policy related to alleged negligent appraisal.
  • Represented MGM Resorts International Global Gaming Development in the U.S. District of Connecticut and Second Circuit in challenges under the U.S. Constitution relating to the company’s ability to compete for in-state casino development opportunities.