A jury’s verdict that a highly regarded environmental law firm did not commit legal malpractice in regard to a pair of ex-clients’ potential property-damage insurance claim “rested on a fair interpretation of the evidence,” a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Upholding a decision by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan that came months after an eight-day 2018 malpractice trial involving the law firm Sive, Paget & Riesel, an Appellate Division, First Department panel wrote that “the jury heard significant evidence about the standard of care an attorney owes to a client, including the information and explanations that an attorney should give to clients about submitting claims to their insurer.”