Hema P. Mehta

Hema P. Mehta is an accomplished insurance coverage and insurance defense attorney and currently serves as the Chair of Chartwell's Insurance Coverage Practice Group. Based in the Philadelphia office, she is admitted to practice in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Hema focuses her practice on representing clients in insurance coverage and bad faith litigation, with an emphasis on general liability, property, and casualty claims. Her insurance coverage work includes serving as National Coordinating Counsel, and handling complex disputes involving mass tort and products liability, opioid liability insurance coverage litigation, professional liability (E&O), and healthcare liability. She also has a strong background in defending against bad faith claims, first-party and third-party disputes, construction-related issues, and other casualty matters. 

In addition to her legal practice, Hema is a member of Chartwell’s Women’s Committee, where she actively contributes to fostering an inclusive and supportive environment within the firm. She is also a respected thought leader in the field of ethical A.I. in legal practice, having presented and authored pieces on the subject, reflecting her passion for this evolving area of law.

Hema obtained her J.D. from Rutgers Law School and her B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh. Before joining Chartwell, she was a partner at another prominent Philadelphia firm, where she was a key member of the litigation group, concentrating on insurance law. Some of Hema’s recent successes include:

• An insurance carrier was sued for breach of contract and bad faith following the insurer's denial of coverage for a civil lawsuit in which the insured allegedly accidentally killed the decedent. The insured pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter, admitting to an imperfect claim of self-defense when he struck the decedent with a loaded pistol that accidentally discharged, resulting in the decedent's death. Agreeing with our interpretation of the criminal acts exclusion in the insurance policy, the court ruled that the insurer acted properly in denying coverage, as it was the criminal nature of the act, not the degree of criminal culpability, that triggered the exclusion's applicability.
• An insurance carrier was involved in a case where police officers sought a defense and indemnity in response to plaintiffs’ claims that the officers sent anonymous harassing text messages. Plaintiffs sued the officers, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se for violations of two criminal statutes—harassment and disorderly conduct—as well as invasion of privacy and conspiracy. The trial court ruled in the insurer’s favor, finding that there was no duty to defend and indemnify the officers because there was no "occurrence" to trigger coverage, and the allegations of intentional conduct were outside the scope of their employment.
• An insurer faced a case in which the insured sought first-party coverage for a fire loss and also sought defense and indemnification for an action filed against him by the injured party. The insurer had issued a vacant building insurance policy with vacancy warranty and secured premises warranty endorsements. The insurer argued, among other things, that the vacancy warranty endorsement barred coverage because the dwelling was tenant-occupied at the time of the fire. The insured claimed to be unaware of the occupancy, asserting that the warranty did not apply. The court, agreeing with the insurer, found that the language of the vacancy warranty endorsement was clear and unambiguous and did not require the insured’s knowledge of the occupancy. The court ruled that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured and did not breach the insurance contract by denying the fire loss claim.
• Hema represented a leasing company in a lawsuit following a multiple-fatality motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs alleged that the driver of the leased vehicle was an employee of the leasing company and was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident. The court ruled that respondeat superior liability did not apply, as the lessor was not an employee of the leasing company at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs also claimed a negligent violation of a statute related to securing a minimum amount of insurance for the vehicle. They argued that the leasing company's noncompliance deprived them of funds that would have compensated for their losses. The court agreed with the leasing company, ruling that noncompliance with the statute was not actionable.

Hema has also tried insurance coverage cases, the latest involving misrepresentation, fraud and arson, in which, after 3 days of a jury trial, a defense verdict was obtained.