Insurance Litigation including “Bad Faith”

We only represent policyholders in this area of our trial and appellate practice. We have a deep understanding that “bad faith” as a tort came from a recognition by our courts that insurance contracts are not “ordinary” in the sense that principles of contract law cannot adequately protect consumers from the wrongful denial of insurance claims or the failure to provide benefits.

We identify dilatory, unconscionable, or unfair claims practices. We work hard to stop them.

Historically, our arsenal has not only included “bad faith” claims. In a proper case, we will prosecute other claims including fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with property, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy.

Uncommon Illumination: We’ve found it’s rarely productive to write “mean” or threatening letters prior to litigation.  For one thing, the community of lawyers who excel in the practice of insurance law in California is relatively small. You might say we know each other. And, the judges before whom we regularly appear know us also. Credibility is key. Write as you speak. Letters have a way of becoming exhibits.

HOA v. HOA Board of Directors

The Firm represented a homeowners’ association with over three hundred members in a suit against members of its former board of directors arising from the handling of insurance matters following the 1994 Northridge quake.  The Directors & Officers insurer paid the policy limits prior to an answer to the complaint being filed.

PCIP Coverage Case

The Firm represented a large subcontractor in a coverage action involving a Project Construction Insurance Program.  The subcontractor had been sued for $15 million.  The coverage action was settled confidentially.

Insurer Failure to Defend Construction-Related Death Case

The Firm represented a moderate-size subcontractor which had been denied a defense by its insurer and had been forced to settle on its own terms.  After cross-motions for summary judgment, the coverage matter was settled confidentially.

Large Developer Defense and Coverage Case

The Firm represented one of the general partners of the developer of a 903-unit, 6-phase apartment and condominium development in Valencia in an action brought by the homeowners’ association for alleged construction defects.  The Firm was able to secure a defense for the general partner under the developer’s primary insurance as well as from the subcontractors’ insurers under “additional insured” endorsements.  The Firm defended the general partner as Cumis counsel.  No out-of-pocket payment was required to settle the matter for the general partner.