JEFFREY A. MILLER

About

Jeffrey A. Miller joined Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP in 2012. His practice experience includes complex commercial litigation, labor and employment disputes, insurance coverage claims, and class actions.  He has represented clients in both federal and state courts and participated in all aspects of litigation, from managing e-discovery and taking depositions to drafting and arguing motions.

Recent representations include:

  • Arguing for and obtaining dismissal of suits against a NASDAQ-100 software company;
  • Securing insurance coverage for a commercial client following destruction of its business facility; and
  • Negotiating settlement on behalf of a multinational technology corporation.

Mr. Miller was previously a litigation associate at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, where he was involved in the representation of a major international financial institution in the Eastern District of New York, with a focus on expert discovery and pre-trial motion practice. Mr. Miller also participated in the representation of retired professionals in cases regarding workers’ compensation and arbitration rights.

In addition, Mr. Miller has represented children with special needs in administrative hearings and actions against the New York City Department of Education. While on fellowship at Advocates for Children of New York, Mr. Miller won favorable decisions and negotiated settlements to secure educational services and classroom placements for students throughout the New York metropolitan area.

Mr. Miller is admitted to practice in the State of New York and in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Education

Duke University (B.S. 2005)

New York University School of Law (J.D. 2010)

  • Review of Law and Social Change
  • Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Society, Sports Law Committee

Public Service &
Professional Activities

  • American Bar Association

Related News & Articles

Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney Wins Right To Take Key Trigger Issue To Trial for Policyholder Client

As set forth in a March 6, 2017 court decision, we defeated a summary judgment motion by over 20 insurance companies that sought to prevent our client from putting its case to the jury for insurance for alleged “property damage” over 26 years of insurance policies. The insurance claims are for defense and settlement costs in excess of $100 million incurred by our client in a nationwide class action product liability litigation (which was settled without any finding of liability), brought by community water systems alleging that our client’s herbicide product, applied for more than 60 years to neighboring cropland, contaminated their water systems. The insurers argued that our client could not prove that “property damage,” as defined in the policies, had occurred in all of the policy periods. We successfully persuaded the court that our client was entitled to present to the jury the expert scientific testimony of its chemical fate and transport expert for its determination whether the alleged “property damage” more likely than not occurred during the policy periods at issue. The court agreed, finding that there were issues of fact as to whether the herbicide product “could/did reach” the community water systems’ water supplies during the policy periods and whether it “could/did contribute to the detections” reported by the community water systems in connection with the settlement, and denied the insurers’ summary judgment motion.

The Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney team consisted of attorneys Dorothea Regal, Josh Blosveren, John Curley, Jeff Miller and Lauren Suss.

Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney Defeats Summary Judgment on Behalf of Policyholder Client

As set forth in a Decision and Order dated January 14, 2016, we defeated a motion for summary judgment filed by our client’s former insurance broker. Our client has alleged that the broker failed to properly advise him regarding his need for workers’ compensation coverage. Justice Joseph Santorelli of the New York Supreme Court found that precluding summary judgment were issues of fact regarding the nature of the relationship and communications between the parties.

Andrew Bourne and Josh Blosveren drafted the winning brief.