Bryan Freeman is a commercial litigator who represents his clients with excellence in and out of the courtroom. He has broad experience litigating business disputes in federal courts around the country, handling complex, class-action defense matters under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), among others.
Bryan is also an insurance-coverage lawyer and adds value to his policyholder clients by helping them secure the benefits and protection their commercial insurance is meant to provide. Bryan has helped his policyholder clients recover millions in insurance coverage, in litigation over coverage for D&O, employment-practices, product, environmental, and fiduciary liability.
Before joining Lindquist, Bryan clerked for Judge David Hansen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Awards & Recognition
- Minnesota Super Lawyers (2013–2016)
- North Star Lawyer, Minnesota State Bar Association (2013)
- Successfully compelled arbitration and resolved putative class-action cases brought against financial institution in connection with payment processing. See Gunson v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al., 43 F. Supp. 3d 1396 (S.D. Fla. 2014); Riley v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., al., 61 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2014); Graham v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al., 2014 WL 4090548 (D. Conn. July 16, 2014); Elder v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al., 2014 WL 1429334 (D. Md. Apr. 11, 2014).
- Successfully defeated TCPA claims brought against financial institution in AAA arbitration hearing, resulting in a complete defense award.
- Obtained summary judgment and complete dismissal of litigation for product manufacturer in complex, multi-party warranty case in which claimant sought to hold manufacturer responsible for over $100 million in alleged damages. See Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., et al. v. Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. The Valspar Corporation, 2013 WL 5652047 (D. Minn., Aug. 2, 2014).
- Obtained a preliminary injunction for financial institution, enjoining the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s enforcement of a regulation that threatened to shut down a line of the financial institution’s business. See First Premier Bank v. U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2011 WL 4458785 (D.S.D., Sept. 23, 2011).
- Obtained approval of a multi-million dollar settlement in appeal to the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit. See In re Petters Co., Inc., 455 B.R. 166 (8th Cir. BAP 2011)
- Successfully resolved complex, multi-insurer insurance-coverage action for financial institution and its directors and officers under D&O liability policies, securing millions of dollars in coverage for breach-of-fiduciary-duty and employment-practices claims.
- Obtained summary judgment in excess of $620,000 for a Minnesota bank victimized by computer fraud, where the bank’s insurer denied coverage under its financial institution bond. See State Bank of Bellingham v. BancInsure, Inc., 823 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2016).
- Represented a business policyholder in a lawsuit against an insurance agent, and tried the case to a successful jury verdict that compensated the policyholder for losses arising out of the agent’s failure to place the correct insurance.
- Obtained a favorable, multimillion dollar recovery for a Minnesota food processor in complex litigation over insurance coverage under a business interruption policy.
- Obtained a successful settlement for a medical-device manufacturer involved in a hotly-contested dispute over product-liability coverage under the manufacturer’s excess insurance policy.
- Obtained a successful settlement for a commercial policyholder seeking errors-and-omissions coverage under its excess insurance policy.
Media & Presentations
“The Insurability of Punitive Damages,” Chapter 9, Minnesota Insurance Law Deskbook
“Five D&O Provisions that Every Practitioner Should Know,” American Bar Association Insurance Coverage Litigation Seminar
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.