Cases
Representative Matters: Insurance Litigation: Represented an insurance company client in recovering its settlement payment from a wrongful eviction lawsuit, successfully denying any obligation to indemnify because any liability for the conduct complained of (the willful dispossession of tenants from the rental unit) is barred from being covered by California Insurance Code section 533, which applies when the harm suffered is intended by the conduct
also defeated the insureds' cross-complaint for breach of contract
bad faith. This was a test case for the client with no on-point appellate authority.
Obtained summary judgment for an insurer client against general contractor insured that construction professional policy did not apply because dem
for remedial work was not covered professional loss.
Obtained summary judgment for an insurer client against the insureds, a bar owner
the building owner,
against the claimants, with respect to insurance coverage for wrongful death claims arising out of a San Francisco bar's security guard/doorman shooting of a prospective patron after denying the victim entrance to the bar.
Obtained decision from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals enforcing New York choice of law clause as a limit on our client's policy obligations with respect to contribution
reimbursement claims by
against a co-insurer
enforcing excess other insurance clause as relieving our client's pollution liability policy from owing any amounts for defense or indemnity where CGL insurer had overlapping coverage.
Obtained order from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (affirming summary judgment in insurer's favor) that New York's common law strict no-prejudice rule barring coverage for late notice applies to policies with New York choice of law clauses that are not subject to NY Ins. Law s. 3420(a)(5) (which creates a prejudice requirement for certain policies) because those policies were issued
delivered outside of New York
therefore, insurer with policy issued
delivered outside of New York had no duty to defend or indemnify insured as a matter of New York law with respect to $10 million coverage for $40+ million in claims that were tendered to the insurer months
years late,
the insurer did not need to demonstrate prejudice.
In California federal court, obtained summary judgment that the New York choice of law clause of an insurance policy applied
precluded coverage based on the insured's late notice of a pollution claim
failure to obtain the insurer's consent prior to incurring $2 million in remediation costs. Court also found that policy was not subject to NY Ins. Law s. 3420(a)(5) (which creates a notice-prejudice requirement for certain policies) because the policy was issued
delivered outside of New York.
Obtained judgment of no coverage, affirmed on appeal, on class action complaint brought on behalf of all California insureds, seeking coverage under specialized liability policies for new wave of lawsuits brought against all California insureds.
Successfully represented many insurance industry clients in monitoring coverage
in coverage lawsuits involving intellectual property, employment, professional liability, serious injury, privacy, advertising injury, construction defect, securities fraud, asbestos
pollution liability disputes.
Successful representation of cedents
reinsurers in reinsurance arbitrations.
Business Litigation: Successfully represented group of franchisees against $95 million class action after substituting in to oppose terminating sanctions motion (granted against co-defendant), eventually obtaining dismissal of entire action.
Successfully obtained summary judgment
affirmance on appeal of business sued for liability in devastating injury to police officer.
Successfully represented a Fortune 500 company in prosecuting lost profit claims arising from a $150 million acquisition agreement, obtaining settlement in excess of component purchase price.
Successfully represented client in an industry-wide class action, obtaining approval of settlement for the smallest share of claimed damages of any industry participant.
Real Estate Litigation: Successfully represented client in defending breach of lease claims for a facility that was shut down, obtaining dismissal without any payment.
Successfully prosecuted a multimillion-dollar mold claim for a property owner.
Successfully obtained recovery for high-end homeowner in nondisclosure case.
Successfully resolved many real estate contract disputes.
Appellate Litigation: Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 8 Cal.5th 93 (2019) (pollution coverage) - Represented pollution liability insurer with respect to appeal of summary judgment considering enforceability of choice of law clause with respect to defenses of late notice
lack of consent. Litigation still pending.
Ameron Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., 625 F. App'x 803 (9th Cir. 2015) (product liability coverage) - Obtained reversal of summary judgment against client CGL insurer on its defense cost contribution claim against non-defending insurer,
entry of duty to defend determination against non-defending insurer, with respect to Canadian lawsuit alleging coatings failures
resulting corrosion to offshore
onshore energy production facilities.
Gemini Ins. Co. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 608 Fed.Appx. 479 (9th Cir. 2015) (pollution coverage) - Obtained reversal of adverse D. Haw. summary judgment against client pollution liability insurer on both CGL insurer's defense cost contribution claim
client's settlement reimbursement claim, based on NY choice of law clause
excess other insurance provision.
Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. City of San Diego, 586 Fed.Appx. 726 (2d Cir. 2014), affirming 972 F.Supp.2d 634 (SDNY 2013) (pollution coverage) - obtained affirmance of summary judgment that a New York choice of law clause was enforceable against a California policyholder
required application of the New York common law strict notice rule, such that the policyholder's late notice barred coverage for $40+ million in claims.
FedEx Home Delivery v. Stone (Tex.App. - Houston 2014) (auto liability) - Obtained settlement after oral argument of multi-million dollar personal injury judgment arising from vehicle liability after challenging trial court's refusal to include statutorily immune party Texas Department of Transportation on the verdict form for allocation of fault.
Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 717 (Cal. 2011) (class action) - Obtained for a group of businesses the dismissal of a $96 million class action alleging that they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited advertisement via fax machine on the basis of plaintiffs' delays in prosecuting the case
bringing it to trial. Obtained a unanimous decision from the California Supreme Court that established the statutory five-year period for bringing a case to trial is stayed only when the stay encompasses all proceeding in the action,
that partial stays do not automatically toll the running of the limitations period. On rem
, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the class action.
Tozzi v. Shinefield, 2011 WL 3298958 (Cal. App. 2011) (real estate fraud) - Obtained a decision from a California Court of Appeal reversing the dismissal of two defendants from a suit brought on behalf of two individuals who alleged that they were defrauded into paying more than a $1 million over their original bid on a house by the existence of a sham counteroffer.
Stout v. Balboa Ins. Co., 2009 WL 3683792 (Cal. App. 2009). (pollution coverage) - Represented general liability insurer with respect to issues of coverage for pollution liability under products
premises coverages.
May v. Nine Plus Properties, Inc., 143 Cal. App. 4th 1538 (Cal. App. 2006) (serious injury) - Defended an owner
operator of a body shop against a claim for severe bodily injury brought by a police officer who was paralyzed after he was struck by a pick-up truck driven by an individual who had stolen it from the body shop's lot. Obtained summary judgment for owner on the basis that it had no duty to protect the public against the actions of a thief. The California Court of Appeals affirmed in a unanimous decision.
Moothart Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5269 (Cal. App. 2003) (business practices coverage) - Represented garage insurer against class action claims by all of its California insured businesses for coverage of claims of violation of the California Unfair Competition Law arising from errors in advertised financing. Obtained demurrers to complaint
unanimous affirmance of dismissal on appeal.
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Am. Excess Ins. Co., 97 Cal. App. 4th 387 (Cal. App. 2002) (pollution coverage) - Represented liability insurers on appeal of the dismissal of an insured's declaratory judgment action due to the res judicata effect of a prior action. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the action.
Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 28 Cal. 4th 1059 (Cal. 2002) (lost policy coverage-amicus) - Submitted amicus brief for London market insurers on heightened burden of proof in lost-document cases
this was the seminal California case on coverage under lost policies.
Homeowners Ass'n of Seaview Community v. The Housing Group, No. A079962 (Cal. App. 1999) (professional liability coverage) - Intervened on behalf of a professional liability insurer in an underlying construction defect action brought by a developer against its insured in order to set aside the $12 million award after learning that the insured had agreed not to oppose the damages hearing that was the basis of the bad-faith action against our client.
Cooper Cos. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 31 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Cal. App. 1995) (pre-merger coverage) - Submitted amicus brief for London market insurers on inapplicability of liability policies to acts of a company acquired through merger or acquisition that occurred prior to the merger or acquisition.
Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. Safety Mut. Cas. Corp., 985 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1993) (business practices coverage) - Obtained on behalf of Liberty Mutual a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirming a district court summary judgment decision that the insured was not entitled to defense
indemnity under the advertising injury clause of a comprehensive general liability policy for class action securities fraud
negligent representation claims brought against the insured.
