- Email: Perry.Shorris@lewisbrisbois.com
- Phone: 312.463.3317
- Fax: 312.345.1778
Perry Shorris is a partner in the Chicago office of Lewis Brisbois and a member of the Insurance Law, Bad Faith Litigation, Directors & Officers Coverage & Litigation, and Insurance Coverage Practices. Mr. Shorris has represented insurers in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation throughout the country with respect to a wide variety of insurance policies, including professional liability, errors and omissions, directors and officers, general liability, excess and umbrella liability, and commercial auto.
Mr. Shorris has obtained numerous victories at trial and on summary judgment. In the area of professional liability insurance, Mr. Shorris was involved in a dispute which culminated with the opinion published as Berry & Murphy, P.C. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 586 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 2009), in which the Court held that the underlying claim was first made prior to the policy period of a claims-made policy. The Court applied the definition of “related wrongful acts” to find that the claim was first made in a letter sent to the insured prior to the policy period and prior to the underlying lawsuit.
Mr. Shorris also obtained summary judgment in a dispute over a Social Services Professional Liability policy. Granite State Ins. Co. v. DeGuzman, Slip. Op., 08-cv-2189 (C.D.Ill. June 4, 2010). The Court held that a claim under the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act, 210 Ill. Comp. Stat. 45/1-101 et seq., could not have been stated against the medical director of a nursing home, such that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the medical director.
In the areas of “personal and advertising injury” coverage, Mr. Shorris has been involved in cutting-edge and complex issues. Notably, Mr. Shorris argued and won the case of American States Ins. Co. v. Capital Assocs. of Jackson County, Inc., 392 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2004), which was the first published decision in the country to hold that the sending of unsolicited facsimile advertisements does not constitute “personal and advertising injury”. In addition, Mr. Shorris prevailed in Santa’s Best Craft, LLC v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 408 Ill.App.3d 173, 941 N.E.2d 291(1st Dist. 2010), in which the court held that the insurer had no duty to indemnify a $3.5 million settlement arising out of an intellectual property dispute involving Christmas lights because the claim did not satisfy the “advertisement” requirement in the “personal and advertising injury” definition.
In connection with coverage for construction defects and construction injuries, Mr. Shorris’ efforts have led to several victories, including:
- Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 1452-4 N. Milwaukee Ave., LLC, 562 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that contractor-subcontractor exclusion in CGL policy applies to owner’s violation of Illinois Adjacent Landowner Excavation Protection Act because the damage arose out of the subcontractor’s work, not the owner’s failure to notify neighbors of impending demolition).
- Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Raatz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90174 (N.D.Ill. Jun. 29, 2012) (holding that the known injury provisions and the known loss doctrine precluded coverage for a general contractor).
- Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Dubin & Assoc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89066 (N.D.Ill. Jun. 27, 2012) (holding that expanded definition of “employee” in employee exclusion extended to subcontractors’ employees who are injured on the job).
- Nautilus Ins. Co. v. JDL, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57294 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 4, 2012) (holding that damage to the structure only does not constitute an “occurrence” and that late notice precluded coverage).
- Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 1735 W. Diversey, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32941 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 8, 2012) (coverage precluded by Products-Completed Operations exclusion).
- Starnet Ins. Co. v. Southwest Indus., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31501(N.D.Ill. Mar. 30, 2010) (no duty to defend indemnitee because indemnification provision in the underlying contract was void under the anti-indemnity act).
Other notable victories by Mr. Shorris include:
- Premcor USA, Inc. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 400 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that attachment point of excess liability policy was unaffected by insolvency of primary insurer despite phrase in Declarations stating that attachment point was “excess of...amount recoverable under the underlying insurance”).
- TIG Specialty Ins. Co. v. Pinkmonkey.com, Inc., 375 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that Personal Profit Exclusion applied to claim that directors and officers made misrepresentations in connection with sale of stock in dot-com startup).
- Ctr. for Blood Research, Inc. v. Coregis Ins. Co., 305 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that coverage under nonmonetary claims endorsement in Nonprofit Organization Liability insurance policy did not apply to attorneys’ fees incurred in response to investigative subpoena issued by U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts).
Mr. Shorris has also counseled and assisted insurance companies in drafting policy forms and endorsements.
United States Court of Appeals - First, Third, Seventh and Tenth Circuits
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
University of Illinois College of Law
Juris Doctor, 1993
University of Michigan
Bachelor of Arts, 1990