Cases
Representative Matters: Served as the neutral in the resolution of pre-litigation insurance disputes submitted to the California Department of Insurance for losses in Northern California.
Served as the neutral in the resolution of post-judgment appeals of a variety of insurance coverage
complex business disputes.
Secured a favorable outcome for the plaintiff insurance company in a declaratory relief action on a dem
for an underinsured motorist coverage payment of $500,000 by the estate of decedent driver, a friend of the insured. The plaintiff alleged that it had no further duty to indemnify the estate when it had already paid its liability limits of $500,000 to another seriously injured passenger. The permissive driver was killed when he, the insured's son,
another friend were struck by an underinsured motorist. Before discovery, the defendant's estate agreed to dismiss all coverage claims in exchange for a waiver of costs
dismissal of the declaratory relief action.
Won summary judgment on behalf of the defendant insurance company when the insured trust tried to collect on the balance owed from the $525,000 sale of a commercial building to a third party who announced it planned to demolish the structure to use the l
. When the third party defaulted on the promissory note for the balance owed, the trust sued the defendant to recoup its losses. The court held that demolition is not a risk or peril under covered causes of loss which are defined as a risk of direct physical loss.
Negotiated a settlement on behalf of a plaintiff insurer denying coverage for costs of defending
indemnifying a group of insured drug manufacturers sued in qui tam, state, county, individual,
class actions for alleged price fixing. The insured drug manufacturer counterclaimed for bad faith. After a decision in Washington on parallel action, we reached a successful settlement with all parties in exchange for the insured's dismissal of bad faith counterclaim, with release of all claims arising out of the average wholesale price litigation,
the insurer dismissing its declaratory relief action.
Won a motion to dismiss with prejudice on behalf of our defendant insurer client on the grounds of tortious bad faith
contractual bad faith statutes of limitation. The court held that the statutes began to run when the insurer initially denied the insured's request to pre-pay medical expense benefits. It further ruled that the insurer's invitation to its insured to continue to submit bills for any further treatment,
to undergo an independent medical exam after it initially denied her request to advance benefits, did not render its initial denial equivocal or toll the statutes of limitation clauses.
Enabled an insurance company defendant to recoup all costs after it had to indemnify plaintiff insured twice in a personal injury matter due to fraud on the part of the plaintiff's lawyer. The plaintiff insured, who was injured as a car passenger, made a policy limits dem
which our client agreed to pay,
sent the settlement check to her lawyer. The plaintiff's lawyer forged her signature on the release
absconded with the settlement proceeds. Our client reissued the check made solely out to the insured,
recouped the illegally endorsed amount from the lawyer's bank.
Won a defense verdict on behalf of insurance company after binding arbitration required the insured general contractor to pay $1.8 million due to construction delays
defects to third party property owners. Our client refused to pay the judgment, asserting the damages were not covered by its policy because of property damage as defined by policy. The plaintiff then filed a bad faith suit against our client. The court found for our client
the appeals court affirmed.
Won a defense verdict on behalf of an insurance company named as a co-defendant with its insured in a lawsuit stemming from an auto collision. After the insured fell asleep at the wheel, he struck
totaled plaintiff's parked truck. The plaintiff sued for property damage, loss of income, breach of contract, bad faith, conversion of the vehicle while stored by insurer, discriminatory claims h
ling,
unfair business practices. The court permitted the suit to proceed against both the separately represented insured
insurer. While the co-defendant insured settled on the first day of the jury trial, our case proceeded, in which we were victorious both at the trial
appellate level.
