Scottsdale Insurance Company is asking a federal court to declare it has no duty to defend or indemnify a Chicago-based consulting firm in a high-profile wrongful conviction lawsuit, citing a raft of policy exclusions and late notice.
In a complaint filed September 24, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Scottsdale Insurance Company seeks a declaratory judgment against John E. Reid and Associates, Inc., Michael Masokas, Katelyn Newey (as Special Representative of the Estate of Arthur T. Newey, Deceased), and Jeanne Olson (as Trustee of the William Amor Revocable Living Trust). The insurer’s move comes as the consulting firm faces two lawsuits - one in federal court, one in state court - alleging that its employees coerced a false confession from William Amor in 1995, resulting in his conviction, incarceration in 1997, and his alleged premature death in 2023.
The lawsuits claim that the Reid Defendants, using the “Reid Technique” during a polygraph interrogation, extracted a confession from Amor that became the basis for his conviction for arson and murder. According to the complaints, the firm’s tactics included coercion, manipulation, and the fabrication of evidence, all of which allegedly contributed to Amor’s wrongful conviction and subsequent suffering. Amor’s conviction was vacated in 2017, and he was acquitted in 2018. He died on January 31, 2023, with the lawsuits alleging that exposure to harsh prison conditions contributed to his death.
Scottsdale, which provided commercial general liability and excess insurance coverage to Reid over several years, is now seeking a judicial declaration that it has no obligation to cover the defense or any potential damages arising from these lawsuits. The insurer’s complaint is rooted in the language of its policies, which it says contain multiple exclusions that bar coverage for the claims at issue.
Among the key provisions cited is the “bodily injury and property damage liability” clause, which states that coverage applies only to bodily injury caused by an “occurrence” during the policy period. Scottsdale argues that the underlying lawsuits allege intentional and knowing acts - such as coercion, fabrication of evidence, and conspiracy - that do not qualify as covered “occurrences” under the policy.
The insurer also points to a series of exclusions, including those for expected or intended injury, personal and advertising injury, and a specific “Testing or Consulting Errors and Omissions” clause. This exclusion states the insurance does not apply to “bodily injury” or “personal and advertising injury” arising out of an error, omission, defect, or deficiency in any test performed, or in an evaluation, consultation, or advice given by or on behalf of any insured.
Additional exclusions cited in the complaint include those for pre-existing injuries, silica, lead, asbestos, fungi or bacteria, and communicable diseases. Scottsdale maintains that these provisions, taken together, preclude any duty to defend or indemnify Reid or its employees in connection with the underlying lawsuits.
The insurer further alleges that the Reid Defendants failed to provide timely notice of the lawsuits, as required by the policies. According to Scottsdale, the firm never tendered the federal lawsuit for coverage and waited more than a year to notify the insurer of Amor’s death and the subsequent wrongful death claim in state court. Scottsdale argues that this delay constitutes a breach of the policies’ notice conditions, further negating any potential coverage.
Scottsdale’s complaint asks the court to declare that it has no duty to defend or indemnify any of the defendants in either lawsuit. The insurer’s position is that the claims fall within the policies’ exclusions and conditions, and that the alleged conduct - intentional, knowing, and rooted in consulting activities - was not covered.
As this is a newly filed complaint, all allegations and policy interpretations reflect Scottsdale’s legal position and have not been tested in court. The case is likely to draw close attention from insurance professionals and risk managers, given its focus on the boundaries of liability coverage in high-stakes, high-profile litigation.
