Edward M. Koch Partner

Edward Koch focuses his practice on general defense litigation in state and federal courts in the areas of insurance coverage, insurance bad faith, consumer class actions, medical professional liability, insurance professional liability and products liability. Ed defends insurance companies, healthcare professionals, insurance professionals, and manufacturers and distributors of products throughout the litigation process, with a particular emphasis on the increasingly unique and specialized discipline of post-trial and appellate practice.  The breadth of his practice allows him to counsel clients and lawyers alike on cases involving multi-disciplinary substantive and procedural areas of the law and, as a result, Ed’s assistance is often solicited for the firm’s high-profile cases.   

Ed has made it a priority in his career to keep advised of important developments in the law, and has created and participated in numerous projects to share this knowledge.  For example, Ed is co-creator and an editor of the firm’s Court Crier^® electronic newsletter, which provides a weekly summary of key cases from the state and federal appellate courts in the region.  He co-conceived and organizes the biennial Healthcare Summit, which brings together experts in the healthcare field and the firm’s lawyers to discuss emerging developments in healthcare law.  Ed also originated the firm’s Lunch and Learn Program, which is a monthly in-house educational program for the firm’s lawyers.  In addition to these signature projects, he frequently writes articles in state and national legal journals on issues such as indemnity contracts, expert testimony motion practice, and trial evidence, and is a regular contributor to various publications generated by the firm. 

Ed is frequently called upon to author amicus curiae briefs in the appellate courts on issues of far-ranging significance to the defense community.  He is also a frequent lecturer on appellate practice, insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, legal writing, releases, legal ethics, and joint and several liability. 

Representative Matters

• Biovail v. Gradient Analytics, Inc., N.J. Super. Ct. (Essex) No. L-1583-06 and Gradient Analytics, Inc. v. Biovail, U.S.D.C. D. Ariz. CV10-0335-PHX-FJM

In this bet-the-company case, we represented a company providing stock analysis who was accused of conspiring with a large hedge fund to issue critical reports of Biovail at a time that allowed the hedge fund to take short positions, and thereby profit, from the drop in Biovail’s stock price.  The purported “scheme” was prominently featured on 60 Minutes in 2006.  After three years, we won the case on a motion to dismiss.  Soon thereafter, we countersued Biovail for malicious prosecution in federal court in Arizona, which resulted in a comprehensive confidential settlement between the parties.   

• Gropper v. Abington Memorial Hospital, Phila. C.C.P. November Term, 1999, No. 3381, Pa. Super. Ct. No. 25 EDM 2003, Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 20 EM 2003

Gropper was the seminal case that clarified the reach of the amendment to the Pennsylvania venue rule in medical malpractice cases.  Following a refusal by the trial court to transfer venue or certify the issue for interlocutory appeal, we immediately filed an emergency petition for review with the Superior Court and also moved for an emergency stay.  The Superior Court denied the request for a stay, and trial moved forward.  The next morning, while litigation counsel was picking a jury, we filed an emergency application for stay with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, asking again that the trial be stayed so that the venue issue could be decided.  After jury selection was completed on the second day of trial, the Supreme Court agreed and stayed the trial until further order. 

Following the extraordinary relief granted by the Supreme Court in Gropper, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in other medical malpractice cases denied healthcare defendants’ motions to transfer, but stayed the cases that were trial-ready pending some clarification from the Supreme Court.  Judge William J. Manfredi of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas reported that 718 such motions were filed in 430 separate cases.  These 430 cases represented approximately 20-25% of the total medical malpractice caseload then pending in Philadelphia County.  Several weeks later, the Supreme Court issued an amendatory order that clarified the new venue rule, stating that it “shall apply to medical professional liability actions filed on or after January 1, 2002 and not to such actions filed prior to that date.”     

• Harbor Commuter Service, Inc. v. Frenkel & Co., Inc., 401 N.J. Super. 354, 951 A.2d 198 (2008)

This case arose out of the procurement of marine insurance policies for a businessman attempting to start a new ferry service. To do so, he borrowed several million dollars, and the lender required the start-up company to obtain certain maritime insurance coverage. After the vessel allegedly ran aground, the start-up company made multiple insurance claims. Coverage was denied. The company thereafter sued three insurance brokers involved in procuring the vessel's insurance coverage. After a damages-only trial, the company was awarded more than $9 million for the loss of the value of the start-up business. We appealed on behalf of our insurance-broker client, and argued that it met all reasonable duties. The New Jersey Appellate Division agreed, holding that the brokers should have been awarded summary judgment prior to trial. It held that one of the subject policies - the hull policy - would have provided coverage for the claimed loss had the company not misrepresented the purchase price. The court also found that the company was equitably estopped from asserting coverage under the breach of warranty policy due to the company's misrepresentations. The court also held that the insurance brokers that were not involved in placing the breach of warranty owed no duty to Harbor with regard to that policy. The company's $9 million judgment was thus vacated in full and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant-brokers.

• St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Nolen Group, Inc., 2006 WL 3208669 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2006)

This property defense case involved water damage as a result of a flood. The plaintiffs argued that certain contractors cleared the land on a nearby construction site before certain precautions were in place, thereby increasing the water flow and damage to the subject properties. The trial initially resulted in a $28.3 million verdict against the owner, general contractor, and several subcontractors. One subcontractor, a land clearer, was found only 1% liable. Due to a combination of pro rata and pro tanto settlements entered into by the plaintiffs with the other defendants, the land clearer subcontractor remained significantly exposed. Through post-verdict motions, we convinced the court that the releases were suspect, resulting in reduction of the judgment by $20 million instead of the $4 million reduction sought by the plaintiffs.

• Weber v. Government Employers Insurance Company, U.S.D.C. D.N.J. No. 07-1332; 262 F.R.D. 431 (D. N.J. 2009)

This is a consumer class of GEICO policyholders brought to reform most of GEICO’s New Jersey Standard Automobile Policies to reflect the statutory maximum of $250,000 in PIP coverage due to the failure of policyholders to return a signed Coverage Selection Form, as the plaintiffs contended was required by New Jersey law.  Through aggressive motions practice, we ultimately engineered a settlement resulting in a limited settlement class of only 965 policyholders.   

Recognition & Involvement

In 2007, Ed was named in a survey of his peers as a Pennsylvania "Rising Star" lawyer by Law & Politics magazine.

Ed is a father of three.  He served on the Concord Township, Pennsylvania Historical Commission.