Andrew M. Schneiderman

Andrew Schneiderman is a litigator who focuses his practice in the areas of consumer litigation, class action litigation, insurance coverage disputes and professional liability claims. Mr. Schneiderman regularly defends Fortune 500 companies, debt buyers, debt collection agencies, lawyers, lending institutions and others in consumer and class action litigation matters, and counsels these organizations in the financial services industry on licensing, risk management and compliance.

Mr. Schneiderman has been handling high exposure class action claims for over a decade including claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute – Chapter 93A. Mr. Schneiderman has significant experience handling class actions claims at all phases in both Federal and state court, and is currently handling a class action claim of first impression before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  Mr. Schneiderman is an active member of the leading consumer financial services industry, ACA International, and is currently ACA MAP Attorney for Connecticut. Mr. Schneiderman also has substantial experience representing attorneys in legal malpractice claims.

• American Collector's Association, Members Attorney Program

A selection of Mr. Schneiderman’s representative cases includes:

• Waters v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., 2011 WL 1344452 (D. Mass. March 04, 2011) (Correspondences used by debt collector did not violate FDCPA as matter of law and holding as a matter of first impression in Massachusetts that late stage debt collector does not need to provide subsequent validation notice to debtor after one has already been provided.)
• Sullivan v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 745 F.Supp.2d 2 (D. Mass.2010) (Use of the phrase "Government Employees Insurance Company" in correspondence to debtor did not violate FDCPA)
• Merchants Ins. Group v. Mr. Cesspool, LLC, 2010 WL 2836859 (D.Mass. July 19, 2010) (Insured business owner's misrepresentations on his application for commercial insurance policy regarding the nature of his business were "material" such that insurer would have acted differently if owner had not made the misrepresentations. Therefore, insurer was entitled to rescind insured's policy under Massachusetts law.)
• Gathuru v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 623 F.Supp.2d 113 (D. Mass. 2009) (Percentage based fee charged by debt collector was permissible.)
• Gargano v. Liberty Intern. Underwriters, Inc., 575 F.Supp.2d 300 (D. Mass. 2008) (Legal professional liability insurer was not contractually obligated to provide coverage to indemnify insured attorney for costs associated with professional liability action in which attorney was found to be intentionally and willfully fraudulent, where neither the institution of lawsuit nor the judgment occurred during policy period, and policy stated it did not apply to claims arising out of criminal, intentionally wrongful, fraudulent, or malicious act or omission.)
• Stacy v. Johnson, 2007 WL 2480341 (D.N.H. August 28, 2007) (Dismissing professional liability claim for lack of personal jurisdiction.)