Rob Friedman was born in Great Neck, New York. He joined Harman Claytor in September of 2011. He focuses his practice in the areas of general civil litigation and insurance coverage litigation.
- Vanderbilt University, B.A., cum laude, 2007
- William & Mary Law School, J.D., 2011
- Editorial Board, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Professional Honors & Activities
- Up & Coming Lawyers, selected as one of 14, Virginia Lawyers Weekly, 2016
- Adjunct Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School
- Insurance Law
- Henrico County Bar Association
- The Rule of Law Project (2012)
- Richmond Bar Association
- Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys
- Chair, Insurance Coverage Section (2016 – 2017)
- Virginia State Bar
- Federal Bar Association
- Defense Research Institute
- Virginia Super Lawyers, Rising Star, Insurance Coverage (2020 – 2021)
- Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch
- Insurance Law (2021)
Bar & Court Admissions
- Virginia State Bar, 2011
- United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 297 Va. 455, 829 S.E.2d 731 (2019).
- York v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., No. 3:19-CV-507, 2019 WL 6493991 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2019) (slip copy).
- Capitol Prop. Mgmt. Corp. v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 261 F. Supp. 3d 680 (E.D. Va. 2017), aff’d, 757 F. App’x 229 (4th Cir. 2018).
- Poore v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co., 355 F. Supp. 3d 506 (W.D. Va. 2018).
- Penn v. 1st S. Ins. Servs., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 703 (E.D. Va. 2018).
- No, Please, After You: Priorities of Liability Coverage and the Interplay Between “Other Insurance” Clauses and Indemnification Agreements, 29 Journal of Civil Litigation 2 (2017).
- Insurance Bad Faith: A Compendium of State Law, co-author of Virginia Chapter (DRI, revised ed. 2015).
- Pickup Trucks, Cargo Vans, and Tool Sheds: Reconciling Recent Vehicle Use Cases with Similar Facts but Different Outcomes, 25 Journal of Civil Litigation 355 (2013).
- Fraud in the Procurement of Insurance Contracts, Chapter 2A in Law of Fraudulent Transactions (revised ed. 2011).
- Protecting Victims from Themselves, but Not Necessarily from Abusers: Issuing a No-Contact Order over the Objection of the Victim-Spouse, 19 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 235 (2010).
- Successfully represented an excess insurer in a bad faith action filed by a primary insurer for the excess carrier’s alleged failure to settle underlying tort case within the primary policy limits. Obtained defense verdict.
- Successfully represented an insurer in a fraud action based on an insurance agent’s alleged fraud with respect to the handling of the insured’s policy reinstatement. Obtained summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
- Successfully represented an insurer in a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify a car dealership in connection with a class action lawsuit filed against the dealership for its alleged failure to disclose certain fees. Obtained summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
- Obtained defense verdicts in multiple auto, premises liability and general liability cases.
- Obtained summary judgment in favor of insurer in a case involving misrepresentation in the application for an undisclosed previous loss.
- Obtained summary judgment in favor of insurer in a case involving fraudulent statements to an insurer.
- Obtained defense verdict in case involving plaintiff seeking UM coverage for property damage caused by a permissive user.
- Successfully represented first party property insurer in breach of contract action filed by its insured for failure to make payments under the policy in bad faith.
- Successfully defended first party property insurer in case involving earthquake damage.
- Successfully defended multiple cases involving first party property insurers of hotels and motels.
- Obtained summary judgment in case involving coverage obligations of rental property insurer with respect to an injury to a guest on the premises.
The cases referenced above do not represent the lawyer’s entire record. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts. The outcome of a particular case cannot be based on past results.