National Union Fire had no duty to defend its law firm policyholder in an unpaid consultant fee dispute, a Florida court ruled February 25.
The decision draws a clear line between what a professional liability policy covers – and what it does not.
The law firm at the center of the ruling, AndersonGlenn LLP, had retained Trilogy Trial Consultants, Inc. to assist with litigation during a nine-week trial. A disagreement later arose over Trilogy's final invoice, and the firm paid only part of it. Trilogy responded by suing AndersonGlenn in Pasco County, Florida, on contract and quasi-contract grounds. That case remains pending.
AndersonGlenn turned to its Lawyer's Professional Liability Insurance Policy, issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., and asked the insurer to step in and cover its defense. The insurer said no, concluding that the claims against the firm fell outside the policy's scope. AndersonGlenn then filed a federal lawsuit against National Union, arguing the insurer had breached its duty to defend and indemnify the firm.
The matter came before U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger of the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. AndersonGlenn did not file a response to the insurer's motion to dismiss, allowing the court to treat the motion as unopposed – though Judge Schlesinger elected to assess its merits regardless.
The policy covered claims arising from a wrongful act, which it defined as any act, error, omission, or personal injury committed in the performance of professional legal services. That phrase – professional legal services – became the crux of the dispute.
The court found that while coordinating with a litigation consultant might, in some circumstances, involve a lawyer's professional judgment, the act of paying or failing to pay an invoice is a different matter entirely. It is a business or commercial function, the court said, rather than the performance of professional legal services. Failing to pay a vendor's invoice simply does not meet the threshold of a covered wrongful act under a professional liability policy.
The firm's troubles did not end there. After AndersonGlenn filed a third-party complaint against its former clients seeking indemnification of Trilogy's costs, the former clients fired back with counterclaims of their own. They alleged that AndersonGlenn had retained $199,887.82 in client funds meant to reimburse the consulting firm's final invoice and had wrongfully failed to remit those funds, giving rise to claims for conversion and an accounting.
AndersonGlenn again sought coverage from National Union for those counterclaims. The insurer again declined. The court agreed, pointing to a specific exclusion in the policy that barred coverage for claims arising out of the intentional or unintentional conversion, misappropriation, or improper commingling of any client funds or property. The former clients' counterclaims fit squarely within that exclusion, the court found, and no duty to defend was triggered.
With neither the Trilogy claims nor the counterclaims falling within the policy's coverage, Judge Schlesinger granted the insurer's motion to dismiss in full on February 25, 2026. A separate motion to stay discovery was denied as moot. The case is now closed.
For insurance professionals who work with lawyers' professional liability, the ruling is a useful reminder that not every lawsuit targeting a law firm will trigger a professional liability policy. The distinction between a firm's legal work and its day-to-day business operations – paying bills, managing vendor relationships, handling client funds – remains a meaningful one when coverage questions arise. Insurers writing LPL coverage, and the brokers placing it, may find the court's reasoning a helpful reference point for setting and communicating coverage expectations with law firm clients.
