Brandon Copeland joined Brown & James in 2006 and practices in the firm's St. Louis office. Prior to joining Brown & James, he worked for a national insurance company as a field claims adjuster for five years. During that time, he gained valuable experience in the proper handling of property and liability insurance claims. Mr. Copeland puts his field experience to work focusing his practice in the area of insurance law, including coverage disputes and arson-fraud litigation. He also practices in the areas of construction law and premises liability.
Illinois State Bar Association
Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers
Springfield Claims Association
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
Best Lawyers - Insurance Law, The Best Lawyers in America
Rising Stars - Civil Litigation Defense, Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers
Presenter, "Evaluating Additional Insured Coverage and Contractual Indemnity Issues," Brown & James General Defense and Insurance Law Symposium, January 2018
Presenter, "Stacking the Deck: Changes to Missouri's Collateral Source Rule," 2017 Brown & James Tort Reform Seminar: A New Day in Missouri, September 2017
Presenter, "Is It High Noon? Premises Liability Claims Involving Conceal-Carry and Gun Rights," Brown & James General Defense & Insurance Law Symposium (January 2017)
Presenter, "Are Condominium Claims the New Mold?" Brown & James Law Symposium (January 2016)
- Presenter, "Advanced Trial Tactics," National Business Institute (September 2015)
- Presenter, "The Ever-Evolving UM and UIM Law in Missouri - Where are We Now?" Brown & James Law Symposium (January 2014)
- Presenter, NBI Insurance Law Update Seminar (2012)
Academic Honors and Activities
Author, “The Missouri Court of Appeals Further Limits First-Party Tort Claims Against Insurers: Overcast v. Billings, Revisited,” The Firm Inquiry (Winter 2008)
Author, “Don’t Rock the Boat: (But if You Do, You Might Not Have Liability Coverage under Your Homeowner’s Policy),” The Firm Inquiry (Summer 2008)
Academic Excellence Award - Civil Procedure
Bacon v. OJ Laughlin – The plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to construct a large addition to their home in a workmanlike manner, resulting in damage and mold throughout the home. As a result, the plaintiffs vacated the home for six months while remediation and repairs took place and discarded much of their personal property. After eight days of trial, and almost three days of deliberations, the jury returned with a full defense verdict for the client.
Collins v. Rader – Plaintiff was injured as he exited from the emergency exit of a school bus used for transportation from defendant’s restaurant to University of Missouri home football games when the front door of the bus “jammed” causing passengers to exit from the back. He alleged the defendant was responsible for the bus driver’s negligent actions and the defendant’s failure to hire a competent transportation company to operate the shuttle. Plaintiff sustained $153,000 in medical bills ($51,000 after adjustments) as a result of treatment for his injury. The jury returned an 11-1 verdict in favor of the defendant.
Meyer v. Rehnquist Design and Build – Plaintiff
alleged that our client, a builder of large homes, unreasonably diverted storm
water on to their property. Plaintiff’s claimed $350,000.00 in
damages. After a week-long jury trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs 10 percent of
their claimed damages.
Cima v. Heartland Credit Union – Plaintiff
alleged that our client withheld a portion of her checking account
withdrawal. The court found for our client and against plaintiff on all
v. Podhorn (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) – The court granted our cross-appeal and
request for a new trial on damages based on the court’s prejudicial jury
instruction that directed the jury to consider the original plaintiffs’ failure
to mitigate against our client. Our client was a contractor with a
third-party claim against the soils engineer it hired to ensure the lot our
client was building on was suitable. We also tried the case in the circuit court where the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client with a
finding of 100 percent fault on the part of the soils engineer.