Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Month: January, 2026
Bryan Sullivan Weighs in on the Groundbreaking Darian Mensah vs. Duke Lawsuit in the New York Times’ “The Athletic” and CBS Sports
Category: News, Press | Tuesday, January 27th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Weighs in on the Groundbreaking Darian Mensah vs. Duke Lawsuit in the New York Times’ “The Athletic” and CBS Sports
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke to the New York Times’ “The Athletic” and CBS Sports about the first-of-its-kind lawsuit from Duke University against its outgoing star quarterback Darian Mensah. After signing a two-year deal with Duke making him one of the highest-paid players in the country, Mensah decided to return to Duke for another year before ultimately announcing his intention to transfer to the University of Miami on the final day of the portal window.
Duke subsequently sued Mensah in an unprecedented move, citing the signed contract and claiming “irreparable harm” if Mensah escaped his contract without any ramifications. The parties reached a settlement Tuesday, January 27th, allowing Mensah to enroll in Miami.
Bryan tells NYT’s “The Athletic” that the core of this lawsuit came down to one question: “Who’s going to be harmed more?”
He explains to CBS Sports that Duke risked damaging the school’s optics with its decision to sue Mensah, even if it was legally within its rights to do so.
“From a business standpoint, nobody may have wanted to be the first school to break that seal and actually sue a player because it may have a chilling effect on other players who may say ‘I don’t want to go to Duke, they sued Mensah,’” Bryan tells CBS Sports. “You make business decisions with knowledge of the law, but you still might not want to enforce it because business-wise it’s not a good idea.”
Bryan adds that despite this, Duke was in a position to calculate the damages that would face the school if Mesah left the team, had the dispute played out in court.
“There’s a good argument that Duke gave up opportunities for other quarterbacks for Mensah,” Bryan continues. “What are their damages there? There’s definitely a way to calculate damages for that, it’s not so speculative that it can’t be calculated. They can certainly get an expert who can testify to that. Maybe they want to be ruthless and not just get their money back, but ding Mensah for an amount of money they would have had he played for them next season,” he concludes.
Read the full article in the New York Times’ “The Athletic” (subscription required).
Read the full article in CBS Sports.
Early Sullivan Obtains Summary Judgment for First American on $14.7 Million Bad Faith Claim
Category: News, Results | Thursday, January 22nd, 2026 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Obtains Summary Judgment for First American on $14.7 Million Bad Faith Claim
Scott E. Gizer, Christopher I. Ritter and Jessica Detering of Early Sullivan prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of First American Title Insurance Company in a bad faith action in U.S. District Court in Washington State. The Insured was a developer that became embroiled in litigation with an adjacent property owner who claimed the right to maintain utility lines under the Insured’s property based on an implied easement theory. After settling that dispute, the Insured tendered a claim to First American for indemnification of the attorney’s fees and costs the Insured incurred as well as other losses.
First American denied coverage on various grounds resulting in the Insured filing a lawsuit against First American for breach of contract and bad faith, seeking $14.7 million in compensatory damages. On a matter of first impression in the State of Washington, Early Sullivan filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the claim for an implied easement was properly denied because it was excluded from coverage under Exclusion 3(d), which excludes matters that are created or attach after the Date of Policy.
Early Sullivan argued that implied easements are not created and do not attach to property until a Court renders a judgment establishing the implied easement. Further, because the adjacent property owner had not established its implied easement through a Court judgment as of the Date of Policy, Exclusion 3(d) applied. The District Court agreed with Early Sullivan’s argument and entered summary judgment in First American’s favor while also denying the Insured’s cross-motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the claim was a covered matter. The case information is Bel-Red Partners, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle), Case No. 2:24-cv-01563-KKE.