Home

> Our People > Bradley M. Jones

Bradley M. Jones

Partner
612.347.9196

612.877.3087

[email protected]

Minneapolis

33 S. Sixth Street
Suite 4300
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Assistant: Amy Nelson

612.371.1322
EMAIL

Services

Bar Admissions

  • Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Not admitted in Arizona

State Bar Admissions

  • Minnesota, 1978
  • North Dakota, 1984
  • Wisconsin, 1985
  • Not admitted in Arizona

Federal Court Admissions

  • United States Supreme Court, 1982
  • United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1993
  • United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1989
  • United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1985
  • United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1979
  • United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, 2001
  • United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2017
  • United States District Court, District of Minnesota, 1978
  • United States District Court, District of Montana, 1990
  • United States District Court, District of North Dakota, 1984
  • United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 1985
  • United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 1985

For 40 years, Bradley Jones has represented clients in a variety of litigation matters and transactions. He is recognized nationally, and locally as a leader in several practice areas.

Bradley focuses his practice on litigation, including (1) general commercial disputes; (2) director and officer claims; (3) professional liability defense; (4) employment claims; (5) products liability claims; and (6) insurance coverage and extra-contractual liability disputes arising out of a variety of liability, property, life, and accident and health insurance products. His clients include businesses and individuals, self-insureds, third-party administrators and insurers.

Bradley’s insurance practice involves claims and litigation across the country.

Education
  • Seton Hall University Law Center, J.D., cum laude, 1978
  • Minnesota State University, B.A., cum laude, 1974
Reported Opinions
  • Linda E. Walsh, v. Warrenn C. Anderson, et al., 2016 WL 7439087 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016), review denied (Minn. March 14, 2017). Client su... Linda E. Walsh, v. Warrenn C. Anderson, et al., 2016 WL 7439087 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016), review denied (Minn. March 14, 2017). Client sued attorney and law firm, alleging that they committed legal malpractice in representing both her and her husband in estate planning matters after she filed for, and then withdrew the petition for, divorce. Appellant alleged that lawyers breached their fiduciary duties by having her sign estate planning documents that were allegedly not in her interest and that they were negligent in allowing her to sign the estate planning documents when the plan allegedly resulted in her taking less than her “fair” share. In accordance with state statute, Appellant submitted an affidavit of expert disclosure providing detailed opinions regarding the Respondents’ duty and alleged breach thereof but stated no more than that the breach “caused [Appellant’s] injury.” The district court granted lawyers’ motion to dismiss based on recently restated Minnesota Supreme Court case law requiring that expert affidavits provide “meaningful information” summarizing the expert’s opinion on how the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s alleged injuries, and stating that a fatal flaw – such as the failure to provide detailed opinions regarding causation – rendered Appellant ineligible for the statute’s safe harbor provision. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal, determining that district court properly applied the relevant case law when it determined that the expert affidavit’s statement of causation was not sufficient to meet the standard established by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co. P.L.L.P. and Guzick v. Kimball.
    More
  • Recall Total Info. Mgmt., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 317 Conn. 46, 115 A.3d 458 (2015) (affirming the appellate court’s affirmance of the trial c... Recall Total Info. Mgmt., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 317 Conn. 46, 115 A.3d 458 (2015) (affirming the appellate court’s affirmance of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of insurer on duty to defend claims arising out of the loss of tapes with personal employee information on them, holding that the appellate court’s reasoning was sound: (1) “there was no breach of the duty to defend that would preclude the defendants from raising coverage defenses because the settlement negotiations involving the plaintiffs and [the employer] did not constitute a ‘[s]uit’ or ‘other dispute resolution proceeding,’ which, pursuant to the policies, would have triggered a duty to defend,” and (2) “the loss of the computer tapes did not constitute a ‘personal injury’ as defined by the policies because there had been no ‘publication’ of the information stored on the tapes resulting in a violation of a person's right to privacy”) We were coverage counsel and then monitoring counsel and participated in developing the case.
    More
  • Scottsdale Indem. Co. v. Village of Crestwood, 673 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2012) (pollution exclusions bar coverage, thus no duty to defend and no $... Scottsdale Indem. Co. v. Village of Crestwood, 673 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2012) (pollution exclusions bar coverage, thus no duty to defend and no $50 million policy-limits exposure in response to claims that Illinois municipality provided contaminated drinking water to its residents for more than twenty years; municipal distribution of contaminated water is “traditional environmental pollution” even though village was not original source of pollution; pollution exclusion bars coverage even though distributing drinking water might constitute “core business” of the municipality)
    More
  • Charles Stafford v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 10-1397 (3d Cir.) (December 3, 2010) (applying N.J. law), reh’g en banc den. (Jan. 4, 2011) (finding no duty to defend or indemnify under homeowner’s policy based upon animal exclusion)
  • Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., 967 F.Supp. 1148 (D.Minn. 1997); 38 F.Supp.2d 771 (D.Minn. 1999) (directors' and officers' liability insurance coverage)
  • Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co., reported cases at 563 N.W.3d 724 (Minn. 1997); 552 N.W.2d 738 (Minn.App. 1996); 533 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. 1995); 518 N.W.2d 58 (Minn.App. 1994) (environmental liability insurance coverage and personal jurisdiction)
  • F.D.I.C. v. Bowen, 865 P.2d 868 (Colo.App. 1993) (regulatory exclusion declared unenforceable in D&O policy and/or fidelity bond, which led to our participation in the creation of a statute in the State of Colorado, stating that the regulatory exclusion is to be enforced)
  • Continental Casualty Co. v. Kinsey, 499 N.W.2d 574 (N.D. 1993) (lawyer's professional liability insurance coverage for punitive damages, treble damages, and fraud)
  • Ebenezer Society v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 453 N.W.2d 545 (Minn.App. 1990) (procedures to bring judgment garnishment actions against insurers strictly enforced)
  • Baker v. CNA Insurance Cos., 123 F.R.D. 322 (D.Mont. 1988) (scope of discovery in an extra-contractual liability case)
  • Jostens, Inc. v. CNA Ins./Continental Casualty Co., 386 N.W.2d 257 (Minn.App. 1986) (insurance coverage under CGL policy for settlement of an employment discrimination class action case)
  • Manufacturers Gasket Co. v. Transcontinental Insurance Co., 9 F.3d 1548, 1993 WL 468905 (6th Cir. (Ohio) Nov. 12, 1993) (Table) (no coverage for products liability claim because of pollution exclusion)
  • Kennison v. Wellington Insurance Co., 582 N.W.2d 69, (Wisc.Ct.App.) pet. for rev. denied (June 12, 1998) (Wisconsin direct action against insurer prohibited where insured was not sued before statute of limitations ran)
  • Wendt v. Sojourn, 1997 WL 471283 (No. C3-97-115, Minn.App., Aug. 19, 1997) (summary judgment affirmed in favor of tenant against elderly plaintiff who stepped off a curb and fell)
  • Witzman v. Lehrman, Lehrman & Flom, 601 N.W.2d 179 (Minn.App. 1999) (establishes Minnesota common law elements for joint tortuous concerted conduct in context of professional liability claim against accountant)
Professional Affiliations
  • American Bar Association—Involved member of the following sections:
  • Business Law Section
  • Litigation Section
  • Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section
  • Excess and Surplus Lines Committee, Vice-Chair (1996-2003)
  • Professionalism Committee, Member (2000-2001)
  • Intellectual Property Committee, Chair-Elect (1998), Chair (1998-1999), Vice-Chair (1999-2001)
  • Emerging Issues Committee, Member (1999-2000)
  • Membership Committee, Member (1993-1994)
  • Membership Involvement Committee, Chair (1992-1993)
  • Professional, Directors’ & Officers’ Liability Law Committee, Chair (1989-1990)
  • Claims & Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance, President, CLM Twin Cities Chapter (2016-Present)
  • The Harmonie Group, President (2001-2003); President-Elect (1999-2001); and Board Member (1997-Present). The Harmonie Group (www.harmonie.org) is a law firm affiliation group comprised of leading claim litigation defense law firms located in the major metropolitan areas of the United States. Its independent law firm members provide legal services to insurers, third-party administrators, and self-insureds. With more than 3,000 lawyers in 58 member law firms in the United States, Mexico and Europe, The Harmonie Group is believed to be the largest affiliation group of its kind. It is affiliated with a similar organization of Canadian lawyers, Canadian Litigation Counsel (www.clcnow.com), and with individual law firms in Europe and Asia.
  • Professional Liability Underwriting Society, Member of the national organization (1998-Present) and Co-Chair, North Central States Chapter (1999)
  • International Association of Defense Counsel, Member (1998-Present)
  • Minnesota State Bar Association
  • Hennepin County Bar Association
Community Involvement
  • President, French Creek Owners' Association, Orono, MN (managed the financial affairs and operations of this private real estate development), 1994-2002
  • Member, Board of Directors, Pinnacle Canyon Las Ventanas Homeowners’ Association, Scottsdale, AZ (participated in managing the financial affairs and operations of this private real estate development), 2004-2007
Accolades
  • Selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® in the area of Insurance Law, 2007-2023
  • Selected for inclusion in the Minnesota Super Lawyers® list in the area of Business Litigation, Thomson Reuters (only five percent of lawyers in the state were selected), 2005-2022
  • Selected for inclusion in The Best of the U.S. Inc.’s list of the Best Service Professionals in the United States under Lawyers, Insurance
  • Awarded the highest possible Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, AV® Preeminent ™ (AV is a registered certification mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies)
News & Events
  • Aug 18, 2022
    Meagher + Geer congratulates its 25 attorneys named to the Best Lawyers® 2023 editionMore...
  • Jul 18, 2022
    Meagher + Geer congratulates its 23 attorneys named to the 2022 Minnesota Super Lawyers® listMore...
  • Aug 19, 2021
    Meagher + Geer congratulates its 25 attorneys named to the Best Lawyers® 2022 EditionMore...
See All
Articles
  • Dec 4, 2018
    The Ins and Outs of the Tripartite RelationshipMore...
See All

Disclaimer

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.

Some of the content on this website is considered Attorney Advertising under the applicable rules of certain states. Results depend on a number of factors unique to each matter. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

LEGAL NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER.

This website is provided by Meagher + Geer, P.L.L.P. for information purposes only but may contain information constituting attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions, selected case-related results and/or award information. Results in prior matters do not guarantee results that may be achieved in future matters. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each matter. By accessing the Meagher + Geer P.L.L.P. website, you are requesting information. The information you are requesting is not legal advice, advertising or solicitation. Transmission and receipt of the materials on the website do not constitute legal advice, establish an attorney-client relationship, or create any duty of Meagher + Geer, P.L.L.P. to any reader. Unsolicited information sent to Meagher + Geer, P.L.L.P. by persons who are not clients of the firm is not subject to any duty of confidentiality on the part of the firm. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. To the extent that the professional responsibility rules of any jurisdiction require us to designate a principal office or an attorney responsible for this website, Meagher + Geer, P.L.L.P. designates its office in Minneapolis, Minnesota (USA) and its managing partner, Stacy A. Broman.

PRIVACY POLICY.

When you visit www.meagher.com, we do not collect any personally identifiable information about you unless you specifically provide it to use. Any personally identifiable information that you submit to us will be used solely for the purpose of responding to inquiries or requests made by you. Your visit to www.meagher.com is tracked through a standard web traffic statistics program, which keeps records of traffic on this site, as well as numerical counts of visitors by domain, URL, search engine, keywords used and other standard web measurements. To improve your experience on our site, we may use ‘cookies’. Cookies are an industry standard and most major websites use them. A cookie is a small text file that our site may place on your computer as a tool to remember your preferences. You may refuse the use of cookies by selecting the appropriate settings on your browser, however, please note that if you do this you may not be able to use the full functionality of this website. By using the Meagher + Geer, P.L.L.P. website, you consent to our use of your information as described in this Privacy Statement. We reserve the right to change our Privacy Statement at any time without advance notice. Please review the Privacy Policy each time you use the Service.

Contacting Meagher + Geer or one of its attorneys by email does not establish an attorney-client relationship or any other kind of relationship between you and Meagher + Geer. Do not provide any information you regard as confidential until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Any information you provide before establishing an attorney-client relationship will not be regarded as privileged or confidential. Do you wish to proceed?
Contacting Meagher + Geer or one of its attorneys by email does not establish an attorney-client relationship or any other kind of relationship between you and Meagher + Geer. Do not provide any information you regard as confidential until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Any information you provide before establishing an attorney-client relationship will not be regarded as privileged or confidential. Do you wish to proceed?
Contacting Meagher + Geer or one of its attorneys by email does not establish an attorney-client relationship or any other kind of relationship between you and Meagher + Geer. Do not provide any information you regard as confidential until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Any information you provide before establishing an attorney-client relationship will not be regarded as privileged or confidential. Do you wish to proceed?
Meagher & Geer

Meagher & Geer