The principal focus of Barbara’s practice is insurance coverage counseling and litigation. She represents insurers in cases involving policies issued to directors and officers, accountants, lawyers, nonprofit organizations, insurance agents and brokers, health care facilities, financial institutions, and insurance companies. Following up on her experience in the Solicitor General’s Office arguing cases before the Supreme Court, Barbara also has been involved in several appellate matters on behalf of the firm’s clients. In addition, Barbara has been involved in public interest activities throughout her time at the firm.

Representative Experience
Represented amici groups supporting parents of a child with special needs in Supreme Court case involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Represents Insurance companies where insured are sued in class or individual actions for violations of securities laws and other alleged wrongdoing.

Represents insurance companies in cases where insured are charged with RICO, antitrust and ERISA violations in connections with bid-rigging and contingent commissions.

Represents insurance companies in cases where insured are charged with market timing and late trading of mutual funds.

Represents insurance companies in connection with foreign government’s criminal investigation of insured.

Represents insurance companies where insured are under investigation for healthcare fraud.

Advises state public officials in connection with Supreme Court arguments, including participating in moot courts for them

Collaborated with other lawyers for multiple insurance companies named in a declaratory judgment direct action.

Together with Canadian counsel, advising insurance company concerning recovery of indemnification due from insured.

Represented Bermudian insurance company in connection with tainted gas episode that left hundreds stranded over a holiday weekend.

Filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of a petition for certiorari on the issue of whether a court may look outside the four corners of the individualized education plan when evaluating the content of the plan. The case is Jacob Winkelman, et al., v. Parma City School District. Click here to read the brief. 

Publications
“Professional Liability Update 2007: A Year In Review,” Ross, Dixon & Bell, LLP (February 29, 2008).

“Post-Winkelman v. Parma: Ensuring Good Education for Special Needs Children,” Autism Asperger’s Digest Magazine (November-December 2007).

“Under the IDEA, Will the Supreme Court Prohibit Reimbursement for Private School Tuition Unless it is Precluded by Public School Enrollment (Even if Such Enrollment Would be Under an Inadequate IEP)?” Ross, Dixon & Bell, LLP (October 3, 2007).

“‘Scheme Liability’ Under Section 10(b),” PLUS Journal (July 2007).