Angela Probasco

Partner

  • location icon Kansas City, MO
    4600 Madison Avenue
    Suite 700
    Kansas City, MO 64112
  • location icon Wichita, KS
    1605 North Waterfront Parkway
    Suite 150
    Wichita, KS 67206

Angela Probasco is a partner in the Kansas City office of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the Insurance Coverage, Bad Faith Litigation, and Employment & Labor Practices. She has wide-ranging experience representing clients in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation as well as in employment, ERISA, and other commercial matters and litigation. She has represented clients in lawsuits filed in numerous jurisdictions, appearing before courts in seventeen states. 

Her core practice consists of advising clients on, and representing them in litigation related to, a variety of claims and types of insurance, including professional liability, directors & officers, errors & omissions, employment practices, general liability, AD&D, and commercial first-party property coverages. She also regularly represents clients in ERISA litigation and in employment law matters, including defending employers against claims of discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour violations in administrative agency and court proceedings.

Admissions

Kansas

Missouri

Arizona

Nebraska

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska

U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri

Education

Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
  • Juris Doctor, cum laude, 2001

University of Nebraska at Lincoln
  • Bachelor of Arts with highest distinction, 1998
  • Phi Beta Kappa
  • Graduate of Honors Program

Representative Cases

  • Engle v. Quanta Indem. Co. (In re Engle), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87036 (D. Ariz. June 26, 2014), judgment on the pleadings entered by district court in favor of insurer.  The plaintiff insured, who has been sued by former clients for allegedly pursuing a pattern of aggressive and risky investment and excessive trading for the purpose of generating fees and commissions for herself, filed an adversary proceeding against liability insurer asserting breach of contract and bad faith claims.
  • Attys. Liab. Prot. Soc., Inc., A Risk Retention Grp. v. Wynne, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124623 (D. Ariz. Aug. 29, 2013), judgment entered by district court in favor of insurer, declaring that lawyers professional liability policy did not afford coverage for the underlying suits and insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds.  The district court also awarded the insurer compensatory damages in the amount of defense costs paid by the insurer in defending the insureds against the underlying suits.
  • D & S Realty, Inc. v. Markel Ins. Co., 816 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2012), judgment entered by trial court in favor of insured reversed and remanded by the Nebraska Supreme Court for new trial on issues related to insured’s failure to comply with the policy’s repair/replace condition.
  • Schuster v. Quanta Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 455 F. App’x 724 (8th Cir. 2012), judgment on the pleadings entered by district court in favor of insurer and affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff insured, who has been sued by former clients for allegedly pursuing a pattern of aggressive and risky investment and excessive trading for the purpose of generating fees and commissions for himself, sought coverage under a broker/dealer and registered representative professional liability policy and asserted bad faith claims.
  • Behrens v. Arch Ins. Co., 631 F.3d 895 (8th Cir. 2011), summary judgment entered by district court in favor of insurer and affirmed on appeal. The plaintiff insured, who has been sued by the SEC and former clients for allegedly perpetrating a Ponzi scheme and misappropriating more than $3.5 million of investor funds for his personal use, sought coverage under a life insurance agents errors and omissions policy.
  • Barbee v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., D. Ariz. Case No. CIV 11-02586 PHX MEA, judgment as a matter of law entered in favor of ERISA plan administrator, which had denied the plaintiff’s claim for permanent disability benefits.
  • Oakland/Red Oak Holdings, Inc. v. AAA Health Prods., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25978 (D. Neb. Apr. 6, 2007), judgment entered by district court in favor of insurer/garnishee dismissing garnishment proceedings with prejudice.
arrow Back to Attorneys