Cases
Experience: Representative Matters: Litigation: Via procedural motion, secured dismissal of television producer defendant of police reality show from complex invasion-of-privacy action filed by out-of-state plaintiffs
followed by news services in several states.
A $2 million settlement was obtained for insurance carrier client following a $20 million default judgment against a racetrack insured, without need for direct action lawsuit or alternative dispute resolution.
Utilized win/win strategy for mediation of habitability claim wherein the settlement, co-funded by insurance carrier
insured, generated sums for all plaintiffs in aging mobile home park to move to newer facilities, while insured park owner reclaimed the l
for more appropriate commercial use.
Obtained summary judgment in federal court case involving split jurisdictional legal authority regarding priority of coverage, pursuant to underlying construction indemnification agreement
language of insurance policies in issue, resulting in multi-million dollar determination in favor of client.
Successfully brought declaratory judgment action against other primary insurance carriers to obtain hundreds of thous
s of dollars in equitable indemnity for overpayment of defense costs
indemnity sums by insurer client.
Obtained multiple successful summary adjudication rulings for large insurance company regarding over $100 million environmental coverage lawsuit involving over 100 sites nationwide.
Insurance: Successfully brought declaratory judgment action against other primary insurance carriers to obtain hundreds of thous
s of dollars in equitable indemnity for overpayment of defense costs
indemnity sums by insurer client.
Involvement in proactive oversight of multiple, complex
novel ad injury coverage issues arising from trademark infringement suit involving judgment in the tens of millions of dollars.
Successful negotiation as coverage counsel with well known bad faith counsel regarding $20 million default judgment against insured. Matter involved interpretation of manuscript endorsements
insured warranty endorsement resulting in settlement of $1 million.
Coverage counsel active in resolving multi-party matter arising from large fire, with significant claims against insured companies by various entities.
In a multi-million dollar class action against an automobile insurance carrier, alleging failure to comply with policy cancellation requirements under new legal precedent, procured settlement of several hundred thous
dollars with minimal litigation.
In federal court diversity action for declaratory relief regarding allocation between three insurance carriers of $2.9 million underlying settlement, summary judgment was obtained for insurer client, ordering no coverage, which resulted in a reimbursement of over $1 million.
Published Cases: Litigation: Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transp.
Obtained California Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeal's decision that insurer client could not seek reimbursement of defense costs it paid under a reservation of rights but was ultimately found not to have owed as a matter of law. The Supreme Court agreed with our argument that in keeping with the seminal Buss v. Superior Court (Transamerica Ins. Co.) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35 decision
principles of equity, insurer client was entitled to full reimbursement of defense costs it never owed.
National Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Ready Pac Foods, Inc.
Selman Breitman prevailed on a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether a claim for a restaurant's damages arising from an alleged decline in patronage after a food-borne illness outbreak was covered under commercial general liability
excess liability policies. The insurers claimed that the claimed damages were economic loss,
not because of covered bodily injury or property damage. The District Court agreed,
ruled that the lost patronage claim was not covered under the insurers' policies.
Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of Hartford
A beauty salon owner brought a breach of contract/bad faith action against its general liability insurer alleging failure to defend allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets, specifically a customer list, a price list
pricing policies. The insurer denied coverage under advertising injury arising out of misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business, questioning: (1) whether Hameid was involved in advertising
(2) whether the allegations gave rise to potential coverage under the advertising injury policy provision. The California Supreme Court found most published decisions held advertising to mean widespread promotional activities directed to the public at large. The insureds' telephone calls
mailers to a competitor's customers were found to be one-on-one solicitations of customers, not advertising
there was no duty to defend lawsuit.
Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
Three insurers litigated coverage for an underlying lawsuit regarding bodily injury claims of a subcontractor's employee when he fell from a roof while employed on a construction project. The subcontractor had contracted to perform work
indemnify the general contractor with primary insurance against claims connected with subcontractor's work. The employee filed suit against the general contractor
the subcontractor's primary insurer defended, eventually exhausting its limits in settlement. Then, the general contractor's primary insurer dem
ed the excess insurer for the subcontractor drop down to provide primary insurance, arguing that the subcontract governed over excess policy language. All three insurers reserved rights, agreed to fund a settlement
litigate the recovery case. At issue were two questions: 1) did client's excess policy's cross-liability exclusion bar all coverage where one insured, an employee, sued another insured, the additional insured general contractor
or, 2) did the subcontract govern priority of the policies requiring the subcontractor's excess policy to drop down for settlement before the general contractor's primary insurance. On motions for cross-summary judgment, the Southern District of Indiana ruled in favor of our client's cross-liability exclusion, finding no coverage under the excess policy.
Big 5 Sporting Goods v. Zurich American Insurance Company
Insured sporting goods company was sued in a putative class action for statutory violations of California's Song-Beverly Act which bars retailers from requesting personal identification information, including ZIP Codes, during credit card transactions at their stores. After tendering this matter to two insurers
receiving a defense under reservation of rights, the insured filed a declaratory judgment action
the insurers counterclaimed. Adjudicating cross-motions for summary judgment, the California Central District Court concluded that no coverage obligations were owed for the statutory violation claims or the tag-along common law invasion of privacy claims. The Court enforced the carriers' policy exclusions for claims, including privacy violations, arising from violation of statutes prohibiting distribution, transmission, or sending of certain information. Additionally, the Court refused to find coverage for alleged common law privacy violations due to collection of ZIP codes. It ruled this conduct did not rise to the level of a privacy violation
merely labeling it as one could not create a defense duty. The Court also held that, in seeking civil penalties, plaintiffs were not seeking damages as required for coverage by the insuring language. The plain
ordinary meaning of damages does not include civil penalties, attorney fees, disgorgement or restitution. Accordingly, the insurers received a declaratory order for full reimbursement of all defense expenses
indemnity sums previously expended on behalf of the insured.
