Lawrence Ingram concentrates his practice in professional liability, qui tam and health care fraud, trade secrets and restrictive covenants, and insurance coverage. In the area of professional liability, his practice focuses on the litigation and trial defense of professional malpractice claims against insurance agents and attorneys. Mr. Ingram has defended in excess of 350 professional liability suits during his career. He is recognized as the preferred defense counsel by a number of insurers, law firms, insurance agencies and the Florida Association of Insurance Agents (“FAIA”).
In the area of health care fraud, Mr. Ingram has handled the defense of high-profile False Claims Act qui tam actions. He also has extensive experience in litigation relating to restrictive covenants and trade secrets, including the defense and prosecution of such cases through jury trial and appeal. In the area of insurance coverage, he provides counseling to businesses and insurers in constructing and applying insurance policies, and in defending insurance coverage actions. In this regard, he has litigated numerous declaratory judgment actions in state and federal courts.
He serves as the managing partner of the firm's Tampa office.
Trial Verdict in Trade Secrets Case — In October 2009 we successfully tried, as plaintiff, a three-week trade secrets case which resulted in a jury verdict and ultimate final judgment in excess of $1 million, which judgment has been satisfied. Fees and costs motions remain outstanding. The case was significant because we were able to establish and recover substantial economic and exemplary damages from the theft of trade secrets. Very few of these type of cases are tried to a jury.
Defense Trial Verdict in Legal Malpractice Case — In December 2011 we successfully obtained a jury verdict of no liability in a legal malpractice two-week jury trial in Sarasota, Florida. The case was high-profile and received a substantial amount of press coverage. The Plaintiffs' expert had opined damages in excess of $20 million. Fees and costs motions against the Plaintiffs are pending. The case was significant because very few legal malpractice cases are tried to a jury.