Skip to Content


Dave Larson represents insurers in complex insurance coverage disputes. During his more than 20 years of practice counseling insurers on coverage issues, he has represented insurers in litigation across the nation in trial courts and at the appellate level. He has counseled and represented insurers on diverse policies and issues related to numerous types of insurance including general liability, commercial property, professional liability, public entity liability, directors and officers, auto including uninsured and underinsured and workers’ compensation and employers’ liability.

He has been involved in a number of significant coverage disputes across the United States, including disputes over coverage for trademark infringement, alleged misuse of patents by pharmaceutical companies, coverage for claims arising out of fiber-optic cable installation, claims for damage to homes across the country caused by failed particle board siding, coverage for environmental contamination and coverage for claims against municipalities for civil rights violations. Dave also has experience addressing class-action claims by insureds related to policy interpretation issues, as well as bad faith claims against insurers.

Dave started his legal career at Pretzel & Stouffer in 1994 and worked as an associate in the insurance coverage group until 1998. From 1998 to 2009, he worked at Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey, becoming a partner in 2006 and representing insurers in coverage disputes nationwide. Dave returned to Pretzel & Stouffer in 2009.


  • California Western School of Law, J.D. 1994
  • Northwestern University, B.A. 1991

Bar Admissions

  • Illinois

Related Practices


Pretzel & Stouffer Attorneys Win Appeal on Behalf of Insurer

Brendan Nelligan and Dave Larson, recently won an appeal in the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, which affirmed an order of summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action brought on behalf of Pretzel’s client, an insurance company. The appellate court adopted Pretzel’s argument that their insurer client owed no duty to defend or indemnify an ...

July 2019