Jacob C. Cohn

Partner

Practices

• Appellate
• Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Creditors' Rights
• Commercial Litigation
• Insurance

Attorney Biography

Experience

Representative Experience

• Argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Travelers Indemnity Company v. Bailey, 557 U. S. 137 (2009), a widely-followed case involving issues of bankruptcy jurisdiction and the finality of the original 1986 Johns Manville asbestos insurance channeling injunction. On remand to the 2nd Circuit, obtained a ruling that his client was never properly made a party to the original proceedings in a manner consistent with constitutional due process and therefore was not bound by the 1986 injunction, in Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 600 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010).
• Argued and won a 14-0 decision by the en banc Third Circuit overruling Graziano, a 30-year old precedent requiring that consumer disputes under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act be made in writing, resolving a deepening circuit split on the issue, in Riccio v. Sentry Credit, Inc., 954 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2020) (en banc).
• Represented the insurer in Rancosky v. Wash. Nat’l Ins. Co., 170 A.3d 364 (Pa. 2017), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established the legal standard for “bad faith” under that state’s 27-year old insurance bad faith statute.  Rejecting arguments by the insured, backed by the plaintiffs’ bar, to hold that mere negligence should suffice to expose insurers to punitive damages and attorneys’ fee awards, the Court adopted a standard that was well within the national mainstream. 
• In a contract dispute, won a $3.1 million breach-of-contract verdict for a Mexican aquaculture company following a week-long bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• Won complete reversal by the 11th Circuit of a $1.9 million jury verdict and attorneys’ fee award against an insurer in a first-party coverage dispute arising from hurricane damage to three apartment complexes on the basis that the plaintiff, a property management company, lacked a sufficient insurable interest to recover for physical damage to properties the company owned, but did not manage. The case was remanded for entry of final judgment in favor of the insurer. Banta Properties, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1419 (11th Cir. Fla., Jan. 24, 2014).
• Won Sixth Circuit affirmance of an Ohio district court’s exclusion of a damages expert on Daubert grounds and subsequent grant of summary judgment in favor of a patent servicing company that erroneously failed to pay annual maintenance fees in Japan causing a Japanese patent to expire prematurely, in ASK Chemicals, LP v. Computer Packages, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23444 (6th Cir. December 10, 2014).
• Won 3rd Circuit affirmance of the summary dismissal of a class action by medical providers challenging an automobile insurer's use of computerized fee review software to adjust claims for medical reimbursement in St. Louis Park Chiropractic, P.A. v. Federal Ins. Co., 342 Fed. App’x. 809, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16299 (3d Cir., July 22, 2009).
• Won summary judgment and prevailed on appeal before the Pennsylvania Superior Court rejecting a homebuilder's argument that CGL policies afford coverage for water damage caused by construction defects. Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007). This decision has been repeatedly cited by the 3rd Circuit and other state and federal courts as a leading precedent in this area of the law.
• Obtained 2nd Circuit affirmance of a ruling that the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center constituted one, rather than two, occurrences for insurance purposes, saving an insurance company $254 million. SR International Business Insurance Co., LTD. v. World Trade Center Properties, 467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006).
• Won reversal of a trial court’s holding in a class action suit, brought by radiologists, that New York's no-fault automobile insurers could not deny reimbursement for MRI scans on grounds of lack of "medical necessity." Long Island Radiology v. Allstate Ins. Co., 830 N.Y.S.2d 192 (2d Dept. 2007).
• In a pro bono representation, obtained a $250,000 settlement for a woman with AIDS after the viatical settlement company that purchased her life insurance policy tried to renege on its contractual obligation to continue paying the woman's health insurance premiums because she had survived for too long.
• Additional representative matters include: Steadfast Ins. Co. v.Eon Labs Mfg., Inc., Del.Super. LEXIS 272 (Del. Super., June 1, 1999), aff'd sub nom., Eon Labs Mfg., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 756 A.2d 889 (Del. 2000); Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250 (3d Cir. 1994);Collins v. Upper Salford Twp., 669 A.2d 335 (Pa. 1995).
   

Publications & Presentations

Publications

• Caveat Emptor for § 363 Sales? Known Creditors, Successor Liability and Notice Issues from the GM Chapter 11 Case,  American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, December 2016
• The Need for Further Transparency Between the Tort System and Section 524(g) Asbestos trusts, 2014 Update – Judicial and Legislative Developments and Other Changes in the Landscape Since 2008, Widener Law Journal, 2014

Education

J.D., cum laude, the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 1988

• University of Pittsburgh Journal of Law and Commerce, Associate Editor

B.A., History, University of Pennsylvania, 1985

Honors

Rated AV Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell*

Best Lawyers in America® distinction in Insurance Law (2016-2024), Appellate Practice (2020-2024)*

Listed in Pennsylvania Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters publication, 2006,
2011-present*

Who’s Who Legal: Insurance & Reinsurance, 2016-present

Pennsylvania Bar Association Pro Bono Award

*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
A description of the Martindale-Hubbell selection methodology can be found at:
https://www.martindale.com/ratings-and-reviews/.
A description of Best Lawyers selection methodologies can be found at:
https://www.bestlawyers.com/
methodology.
The Super Lawyers® list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodologies can be found at:
https://www.superlawyers.com/about/
selection_process.html.