Andrew W. Hull is a founding partner with Hoover Hull LLP. He practices in the areas of commercial litigation, ERISA and employment litigation, attorney professional liability defense, and insurance-related litigation. He is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in Indiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Andy has tried cases in state and federal courts throughout Indiana and arbitrations throughout the United States. He has argued appeals before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, the Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Andy has the highest professional rating (AV®*) provided by Martindale Hubbell. He is selected for inclusion in the listing of Indiana's Best Lawyers® in Commercial Litigation (2010, 2011) and Indiana Super Lawyers®** (2004-2012, Top 50 in 2010-2012). Andy is a Distinguished Fellow of the Indianapolis Bar Foundation and a member of the International Network of Boutique Law Firms (INBLF).
Professional Experience
-
Represents Fortune 500 companies and mid-level businesses in class action suits, product liability claims and business disputes involving breach of contract, business tort and trade secret claims.
-
Represents large Indiana law firms in the defense of professional liability claims.
-
Represents closely-held companies and their officers, directors and shareholders in business disputes, shareholders' litigation and officers and directors litigation.
-
Represents employers, ERISA plans, fiduciaries, and insurance companies in employment and employee benefit litigation.
-
Represents insurers in coverage, reinsurance, complex claim and regulatory matters.
-
Represents drivers and teams in the motorsports industry.
Education
Andy received his B.G.S. degree from the University of Michigan (1981) and his J.D., cum laude, from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law-Bloomington (1986). Andy served as an editor for the Indiana Law Journal.
Publications and Speaking Engagements
Andy is a frequent speaker and author for continuing legal education seminars on topics such as the use of expert witnesses, trial evidence issues, trial practice, commercial litigation tactics, attorneys’ fees for frivolous litigation and employment and employee benefits litigation.
Professional Associations, Memberships, and Community Service
-
Andy is an active member of the Indianapolis, Indiana State, Seventh Circuit and American Bar Associations.
-
Andy is a member of the Defense Research Institute (DRI), the Professional Liability Defense Federation, the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana (DTCI) and the Indianapolis Law Club.
-
Andy is an active supporting lawyer for the Indianapolis Bar Association Homeless Project and the Indiana University Maurer School of Law-Bloomington Moot Court competition.
Representative Cases
-
Bandak v. Eli Lilly & Co. Retirement Plan, 587 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2009) (ERISA and employment law; affirming judgment for plaintiff on ERISA claim for damages, affirming award of attorneys fees and costs on grounds that Lilly’s position in the litigation had not been substantially justified, awarding plaintiff appellate attorney fees).
-
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Desert Palace, Inc., 882 N.E.2d 743, (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (commercial litigation; on issue of first impression, holding that trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendant casinos would not violate their constitutional due process rights).
-
Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Reinsurance Results, Inc., 513 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2008) (commercial litigation; affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer; rejecting service provider’s claim for compensation for work performed outside the scope of a service contract).
-
Werdehausen v. Benicorp Ins. Co., 487 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 2007)(ERISA; determining genuine issue of material fact existed and remanding to trial court for interpretation of ERISA plan concerning whether premium adjustment was available); see also Rowe v. Benicorp Ins. Co., No. 2:04-cv-00022 SNL, 2006 WL 1341421 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 1, 2006) (ERISA; denying summary judgment for defendant, finding that insurer had not shown that decision could withstand arbitrary and capricious review).
-
Ind. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Bedford Regional Med. Ctr., 863 N.E.2d 308 (Ind. 2007) (insurance law; on an issue of first impression holding that policyholder of insolvent insurer could recover from insurance guaranty association claim for lost wages of deceased claimants); see also Ind. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Bedford Regional Med. Ctr., 841 N.E.2d 577 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
-
Buck v. Grube, 833 N.E.2d 110 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (real property; affirming in part and reversing part trial court order to partition and sell commercial real estate).
-
Baker O’Neal Holdings, Inc. v. Massey, 403 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2005) (commercial litigation; affirming judgment of trial court that $2.5 million deposit payment to Massey was recoverable to avoid unjust enrichment because parties never concluded a contract); see also Massey v. Baker O’Neal Holdings, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-1304-DFH-TAB, 2006 WL 897880 (S.D. Ind., March 31, 2006) (commercial litigation; affirming bankruptcy court’s denial of Massey’s claim for $1 million setoff and ordering Massey to show cause why he should not sanctioned for filing frivolous litigation).
-
Arkanoff v. John Alden Life Ins., No. IP00-1119-C-B/S, 2003 WL 22479912 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 24, 2003) (ERISA interpreting plan provision requirements for appeal, denying motion for summary judgment and granting motion to strike).
-
Ernst & Young LLP v. Baker O’Neal Holdings, Inc., 304 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2002) (commercial litigation; affirming denial of accounting firm’s motion to compel arbitration); see also Ernst & Young LLP v. Baker O’Neal Holdings, Inc., No. 1:03-CV-0132-DFH, 2004 WL 771230 (S.D. Ind. March 24, 2004) (commercial litigation; allowing debtor to file amended complaint, granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss claims for accounting malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent inducement against accounting firm and individual accountant).
-
Ind. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Davis, 768 N.E.2d 902 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (insurance law; on issue of first impression in Indiana, holding that claim against health insurance policy was not a covered claim under Guaranty Association Act and therefore could not be used to reduce amount payable by Guaranty Association).
-
Fairfield Dev., Inc. v. Georgetown Woods Sr. Apartments Ltd. P’ship, 768 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (commercial litigation; affirming trial court judgment piercing corporate veil and finding breach of contract).
-
Williams v. Benicorp Ins. Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (M.D. Ga. 2002) (ERISA; denying beneficiary’s motion to remand case to state court).
-
Star Sci., Inc. v. Carter, 204 F.R.D. 410 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (constitutional law; related to tobacco master settlement litigation, denying tobacco company’s motion for protective order over confidential documents and trade secrets, and entering court-ordered protective order).
-
Trimble v. Ameritech Pub., Inc., 700 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind. 1998) (contract law; holding exculpatory clause limiting publisher’s liability was enforceable and not void as against public policy).
-
Rush v. McDonald’s Corp., 966 F.2d 1104 (7th Cir. 1992) (employment discrimination; affirming dismissal and summary judgment for employer, also affirming Rule 11 sanctions against former employee’s attorney).
The foregoing judicial opinions are provided only as exemplars of the legal experiences of Hoover Hull LLP and its attorneys, and do not represent the full range of experience of the firm. They should not be viewed or used as a substitute for specific legal advice. Each of these legal matters presented a unique set of facts, and none should be viewed as suggesting or predicting any outcome in any other legal matter, regardless of similarity.
Links To Relevant News Items
* AV®, BV® and CV® are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. AV® is the highest rating available from Martindale Hubbell Peer Review Services. Martindale-Hubbell ratings fall into two categories—legal ability and general ethical standards.
** The Super Lawyers® selection process is based on nominations by attorneys licensed in Indiana combined with third party research. Up to 5% of the total lawyers in the state are selected for inclusion in the listing of Super Lawyers®.
