A Partner at Butler, Fay E. Ryan devotes her Tampa practice to third party coverage and extra-contractual matters. Within these practice areas, her numerous claims deal with construction defect, auto accidents, slip-and-falls, products liability, defamation, and more. Fay has experience analyzing virtually all types of liability policies, including CGL, Excess and Umbrella, OCIP, Commercial Auto, Personal Lines, E & O, Environmental, and Reinsurance. In addition to providing coverage advice, Fay advises clients on good faith claims handling, including settlement in multi-claimant situations. Fay has tried over fifty jury trials and approximately thirty non-jury trials .
Fay graduated cum laude from Boston College with a Bachelor of Arts degree. She received her Doctor of Jurisprudence, cum laude, from the University of Florida College of Law. During law school, Fay earned the American Jurisprudence Award in Contracts, Estates and Trusts, English Legal History, and Legal Drafting. She is also a member of the Order of the Coif, an honor society for law school graduates who were in the top ten percent of their graduating class.
Since becoming a lawyer, Fay has contributed to the Defense Research Institute’s multi-state compendium (Florida chapter). She has also been published in Mealey’s Litigation Report: Bad Faith, and DRI’s: For The Defense magazine.
- Boston College
Bachelor of Arts
- University of Florida
Doctor of Jurisprudence
- Florida Bar Association (FBA)
- Order of the Coif
- Florida Courts (Middle District)
- Florida Courts (Southern District)
- Florida Federal Courts
For more information regarding these cases, please contact Fay Ryan.
Representative Cases Litigated to Conclusion:
Steadfast v. Celebration Source, et al: Summary judgment that insurer owes no duty to defend BI lawsuit where accident occurred on a recreational apparatus not listed by insured on Equipment Schedule. Documents forming part of application for surplus lines policy can be considered part of policy under common law principles of contractual interpretation, even though §627. 419 does not apply to surplus lines.
Lloyds v. Scottsdale and Sands Harbor, et al : Denial of opposing insurer’s motion for summary judgment seeking declaration that defendant insurer was primary and plaintiff excess; court holds both insurers owe a co-primary duty to defend on a pro rata basis.
PCIC v. A & M Fox Roofing, Inc., et al: Summary judgment for insurer under “ongoing ops” exclusion endorsement to CGL policy; roof leaked during insured’s roof replacement job.
Myers v. Foremost, et al: Dismissal of UM claim with Prejudice, where policyholder who did not understand that she was rejecting UM admits she did not read UM rejection form before signing it.
SNIC v. West, et al,: Summary judgment for insurer under Named Driver Exclusion Endorsement; no coverage for wrongful death and serious BI claims arising out of excluded driver’s use of Insured Vehicle.
American Economy Ins. Co. v. Traylor Wolfe Architects, Inc., et al: Summary judgment for insurer under Business Auto policy; court agrees with insurer that business owner was engaged in personal use at time of accident.
The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Garden Of Eat’n Of Tampa, Inc., et al : Summary judgment under Employer’s Liability exclusion to CGL policy; court finds that accident still arises out of employment where employee trips in parking lot on way to car at end of shift.
MCC v. Clean Seas Company, Inc., et al : Court prevents retailer from aggregating multiple customers’ claims into one “Superclaim” against distributer/policyholder in an attempt to avoid the “per claim” deductible; court also finds that economic losses resulting from damage to insured’s product, are not “Property Damage” under CGL policy.
Coachmen Industries, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co.: Dismissal of Bad Faith and Abuse of Process claims with Prejudice; only Malicious Prosecution claim allowed to proceed.
Gorthy v. General Manufactured Housing, et al: Defense verdict for mobile home manufacturer sued on theories of strict liability, negligent construction, and negligent installation of mobile home. Plaintiffs were allegedly injured by mold exposure caused by water intrusion.
October 27, 2014
PUBLICATIONThree Is A Crowd: Revisiting The Third Party Beneficiary Doctrine
Read More »
This article examines the third party beneficiary doctrine in conjunction with the approaches courts follow with regard to the collection of an excess judgment from a liability insurer.
December 09, 2010
PUBLICATIONSplitting The Baby: The Insurer's Duty To Notify The Insured Of The Need For An Allocated Verdict
Read More »
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 24, #15 (December 9, 2010). © 2010
[Editor's Note: Fay E. Ryan is a partner the Tampa office of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, which also has offices in Chicago, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee and Miami. She is an experienced trial attorney in the firm's Extra-Contractual, Third-Party Coverage, and Liability Departments. Kimberly N. Gorak is a senior associate in the Tampa office of Butler , also practicing in the firm's Extra-Contractual, Third-Party Coverage, and Liability Departments. Any commentary or opinions do not reflect the opinions of Butler or Mealey's. Copyright © 2010 by Fay E. Ryan and Kimberly N. Gorak. Responses are welcome .]
January 28, 2010
PUBLICATIONA Look Back At Some Of 2009s Significant Bad Faith Decisions
Read More »
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 23, #18 (January 28, 2010). © 2010
October 17, 2001
PUBLICATIONJustices: Please Take This Case!
Read More »
Two recent state court decisions jeopardize the right of insurers to consult legal counsel when considering whether to pay or deny the claim of a policyholder. The Arizona and Ohio state supreme courts have issued opinions eroding, even abrogating, the attorney client and work product privileges. In one of these decisions, Boone v. Vanliner, 744 N.E.2d 154 (Ohio 2001), the insurer has petitioned the United States Supreme Court to issue the writ of certiorari, hear the case and reverse the Ohio Supreme Court. The undersigned urges the United States Supreme Court to take the Vanliner case for the reasons stated below.