Coverage counsel for insurer involved in largest Hepatitis A Outbreak from food borne illness. Successfully negotiated settlement of more than 300 claims and then pursued recovery of defense and indemnity paid by insurer from vendors and suppliers of the insured. 

Coverage counsel for insurer providing advice regarding Multi District Litigation and Federal Trade Commission action concerning well known entity sued for making deceptive claims regarding its products.

Represented insurer in multiple party action regarding priority of insurance coverage and issues concerning satisfaction of Self Insured Retention. 

Represented an insurance company in negotiating settlement of Bodily Injury and Property Damage claims maintained by more than 200 claimants one week prior to bell weather trial was scheduled to begin.  Suit concerned allegations of contaminated groundwater due to business operations on property adjacent to the Plaintiff homeowners.  Also represented insurer in a related action by other insurers seeking reimbursement and declaratory relief and by insured who alleged bad faith regarding each insurers duty to defend and indemnify. 

In Federal Bankruptcy court, represented an insurer which issued an environmental remediation policy and paid $75 million limit by devising a strategy to recoup funds which included settlement with debtor securing first lien position on real property, a release of all extra-contractual claims, the filing of actions against third party polluters, and condemnation actions against a municipality, all of  which has so far reimbursed the client for over $55 million and total recovery will achieve almost full reimbursement after sale of land and payment of lien position.

Filed a reformation action on behalf of an insurer against major oil company in a suit involving coverage issues for clean up of polluted sites in which client's $25 million policy did not contain a pollution exclusion.  The case was won when the court granted reformation and ordered that a pollution exclusion, barring coverage for all claims, should be added to the policy.

Successfully defended an insurer against a lawsuit filed by a National Basketball Team alleging coverage under its advertising injury coverage for a suit filed against the team by the NBA, by convincing the trial court that the underlying suit did not arise out of advertising activities, but rather a contract dispute caused by the team's unilateral decision to relocate.  The victory was successfully upheld on appeal by the firm.

After winning in the trial court, established significant appellate authority on the scope of the professional services exclusion by upholding the judgment that determined that ear-piercing was a professional service.

Served as coverage counsel for various carriers on issues dealing with California earthquakes, including statutes of limitations, appraisals, causation, and demands for re-opening of claims.

Counseled excess carrier regarding primary/excess limits on issues arising out of claims involving over $1 Billion of claims arising from the San Diego wildfires.

Serves as Western Regional Coverage Counsel for Surplus Lines Insurer with responsibility for coverage positions throughout western United States, and also for a separate major admitted carrier.

Successfully settled matter on behalf of client insurer for breach of lease for various dental office equipment. 

Counsel for plaintiffs subrogated insurance carriers in a matter involving alleged business losses in excess of $70 million and alleged personal injuries to hundreds of restaurant patrons, arising out of the distribution of contaminated foodstuffs by one or more of six defendant distributors to a single restaurant.

Professional Liability:  Obtained summary judgment in favor of an insurance agency client stemming from a multi-million dollar fire and business interruption loss claimed by the plaintiff, a commercial concern.

Involvement in proactive oversight of multiple, complex and novel "ad injury" coverage issues arising from trademark infringement suit involving judgment in the tens of millions of dollars.

Obtained a binding arbitration award on behalf of client in a case involving a spin on the garden-variety carrier-versus-carrier dispute. The non-defending carrier did not have notice of the underlying action against the policyholder because here, the defending carrier repeatedly asked the policyholder to identify its other primary carrier, and the policyholder refused.  Nonetheless, the Court was convinced that the equities in this matter favored rejecting the other carrier's contribution claims, finding that a carrier should not be obligated to equitably contribute to the defense or indemnity of a claim where the carrier never received tender or notice of the claim.  Forcing the carrier to contribute under such circumstances would strip the carrier of its contractual rights, such as the right to control its insured's defense.  As a matter of public policy, such an outcome may also discourage a defending carrier from taking timely action to identify other carriers and provide them with prompt notice of a claim. 

While the defending carrier normally has the means and the opportunity to identify other carriers to share the defense and settlement expense burden, a carrier that is asked to contribute without having received tender or notice of the claim has no opportunity to avoid or mitigate its situation. No inequity results when the defending/settling carrier is left to shoulder the entire defense and settlement expenditure because it was contractually obligated to do so if no other insurance existed. 

Represented an insurer faced with a time-limit demand for payment of a property damage claim. Replacement of an inside and outside sewer line was required due to a breach of the sewer line by tree roots. The insured's attorney and the insured were convinced to withdraw the claim for breach of the policy contract and bad faith based upon case law, supported interpretation of policy exclusions, and aggressive investigation of the facts, which revealed that the collapse of the inside sewer line was caused by old age. Wear and tear and the outside sewer line had been compromised by tree roots because of inadequate maintenance, which resulted in constant and repeated seepage of water over an extended period of time. 

Following aggressive investigation of the facts of the claim and application of pertinent case law, counsel for insured was convinced to refrain from filing a complaint alleging wrongful denial of a theft claim. The insured's claim was withdrawn based upon the discovery of information that described the suspicious nature of the claim.

A favorable ruling was obtained in a bench trial involving issues of trigger of coverage and method of exhaustion for primary and excess policies spanning over 40 years of coverage which were responsive to toxic tort claims.

A multi-million dollar jury verdict was obtained in a case regarding insurance indemnity obligations for out-of-state toxic tort remedial clean-up.

A multi-million dollar verdict in an insurance policy rescission action was obtained in United States District Court on behalf of insurance carrier, based on misrepresentation in insurance application by holding company with multiple corporate subsidiaries. Appeal to Ninth Circuit was successfully defended.

In an action involving an actress who sustained allegedly career-ending injuries, a declaratory judgment was obtained in favor of an insurer on a Garage Keeper's policy, that the limits of the policy were limited to California's minimum financial responsibility law amounts. 

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. 

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 thousand dollars with minimal litigation.

Counsel in a one-week bench trial in an action for equitable contribution, at the conclusion of which judgment was entered by the court in favor of client insurer, adopting, without modification, our 50-page proposed statement of decision regarding the interpretation of exclusionary endorsement and priority of coverage issues.

In defense of client insurer, rescission and/or reimbursement was pursued for insurer's $2 million indemnity payment against defendant, and contribution/subrogation against other additional insured carriers for $875,000 paid in defense fees and costs. Judgment was obtained on client insurer's behalf, and over $1.5 million (of the $2 million) was collected as to the claims against the insured. In addition, approximately $950,000 was collected, including pre-judgment interest, in defense fees and costs from the additional insured carriers. 

In a contribution action by another insurer addressing the exclusive defense language in the insuring agreement of the excess policy, the Court of Appeal upheld the granting of a motion for summary judgment on behalf of client insurance company. This is an issue of first impression in California, and remains the only Court of Appeal decision to date to address the issue.

Obtained summary judgment in federal court case involving split jurisdictional legal authority regarding priority of coverage pursuant to underlying construction indemnification agreement and language of insurance policies in issue, resulting in multimillion dollar determination in favor of client.

Represent multiple insurers in a lengthy, complex environmental insurance coverage litigation, where an insured oil company seeks coverage for the clean-up of its refineries, oil fields and gas stations across America for pollution caused by the company over the years. The insurers have conducted extensive depositions of site witnesses, experts, and environmental consultants, and successfully obtained rulings against the oil company barring recovery for: (1) the oil company's pre-tender costs; (2) the oil company's claims that do not involve an actual lawsuit; (3) policies containing an absolute pollution exclusion; and (4) policies containing a "sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion. The insurers are now preparing for trial on whether there was any covered property damage during the policy period at an oil field on the Central Coast of California and whether the oil company "expected or intended" such damage. Other phases of trial will involve additional sites.

Represented client insurer in a coverage dispute with two public entities, both claiming insured status under client's policies. The public entities sought coverage under multiple insurers' policies, including the excess policy issued by client, with respect to several consolidated lawsuits filed by more than 2,000 claimants in connection with a wildfire that allegedly resulted in damage to more than $1 billion in property.

Represented client insurer in litigation against its insured, a nationwide printing company. Insured had sought a defense and indemnity in a misappropriation of trade secrets case pending in California under the advertising injury coverage of client insurer's CGL policy. Client denied coverage, and the coverage issues were litigated in Texas, where client maintained its principal place of business. Client insurer obtained a favorable ruling from the Southern District of Texas, and that ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in a published decision.

Represented client insurance company in an action filed by a judgment creditor to recover amounts awarded in an underlying trial against client's insured, along with bad faith damages based on client's refusal to satisfy the entire underlying judgment amount. Although the judgment creditor sought recover in excess of $1 million, clients settled for $300,000, which was considerably less than the underlying judgment amount.

Obtained a dismissal of client insurer in a bad faith lawsuit filed by subcontractor claiming insured status under client insurer's Home Builders Protective Insurance policies in connection with four underlying construction defect lawsuits.

The client insurance company's insured general contractor tendered a complaint by plaintiff property owners, who were also the insured's business partners, after a multi-million dollar default was entered against the insured. The client agreed to defend the insured in an effort to set aside the default judgment, or alternatively, to reduce the amount of the default judgment.  The trial court declined to set aside the default judgment, finding the insured made a conscious decision not to respond to the summons and complaint, and refused to reduce the amount of the judgment.  On appeal, the court ordered the default judgment be reduced by several million dollars, but affirmed the trial court's decision not to set the default aside.  Based on the default judgment, the terms of the policy, and the findings of the trial court, the client was able to decline to indemnify the insured for the default judgment.

In a case against a general contractor alleging over $350,000 in damages related to a property remodel, the client insurance company was able to settle on behalf of the insured general contractor for $50,000.  At mediation, following the general contractor's representation that he had no assets, we argued and convinced plaintiff, an attorney, most of the alleged damages sought were precluded from coverage under the terms of the client insurer's policy.

A neighboring property owner filed suit against a general contractor that constructed a single family residence on the adjoining property.  Our investigation and coverage determination supported the client insurance company's declination of a duty to defend based on a land subsidence exclusion, as the only damages sought were for loss of lateral support.

An insured HVAC contractor was sued for bodily injury and petty damage resulting from a leak in an HVAC line that caused a bedroom ceiling to collapse.  Although the elderly plaintiff claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages related to the bodily injuries, the matter settled for a nominal amount for the property damage following mediation where we presented coverage defenses that the bodily injury occurred after the policy terminated.

Our investigation and coverage determination lead to the client insurance company disclaiming a duty to defend or indemnify the named insured general contractor in a multi-million dollar suit for damage arising from the construction of a condominium/residential mixed use project.  Through the investigation, we learned that although the contract between the insured and the property owner had been executed during the policy period, the policy was cancelled at the insured' request prior to the insured commencing work.

Represented excess carrier in claim against primary carrier that issued multiple policies and attempted to prematurely exhaust one primary policy to trigger excess coverage and avoid indemnity obligation under second primary policy.  Filed declaratory relief action, which resulted in primary carrier abandoning its position and indemnifying the named insured under both policies.

On behalf of direct carrier for general contractor, pursued non-participating AI carriers and obtained over $1.6 million in defense reimbursement without need for coverage litigation. Coordinated joint defense agreement for all carriers to equitably share defense of general contractor between all insurers with a duty to defend the general contractor.

Defended three separate insurers in contribution action with demands against each in excess of six figures.  Resolved claims against two clients for no contribution and third client for less than six figure settlement after minimizing plaintiffs damages through discovery process and coverage defenses.

In a direct 11580 action claim against carrier by claimant based upon a default judgment against insured for mid-six figures, we convinced claimant to drop his claim in its entirety.  In addition to defeating the claim based upon coverage defenses, we also established claimant's inability to prevail on procedural grounds by establishing the default judgment was void as a matter of law.

Represented insurer in claim involving alleged theft of personal property (gold and silver bullion bars) during construction activities.

Represented insurer in construction defect claim concerning loss of use of property due to foul smell of construction materials.

Represented insurer in construction defect claim involving coverage dispute for claims of damage under prong b. of definition of "property damage" for loss of use of property not physically injured.

Represented an insurer in a declaratory relief action in which the insured, its assignees and judgment creditors filed a counter-claim asserting causes of action for bad faith and breach of contract.

Represented an insurer in a dispute concerning priority as between its primary policy and the primary and excess policies issued by an additional insured carrier.

Represented an excess insurer seeking to enforce, through binding arbitration, an equitable subrogation claim against a primary insurer that arose out of the primary insurer's failure to settle the underlying litigation within policy limits.

Negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of an insurer in an equitable contribution action involving third-party coverage issues. 

Represented an insurer in a dispute concerning contribution towards the defense and indemnification of a general contractor in an underlying construction defect lawsuit.  Successfully secured contribution, reimbursement and equitable subrogation rights from several additional insured carriers.

Represent insurer in pollution coverage claim for clean-up of tideland waters near San Diego. The applicability of the "sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion is at issue. Negotiating a settlement involving a site release to compromise the insured's claim for coverage.

Represent multiple insurers in an asbestos coverage action where the insured is claiming that many of the claims filed against it are "operations" claims, and not "products" claims, and thus not subject to an "aggregate limit" in the insurer's policies, thus leading to perpetual coverage. Coverage determinations for the underlying asbestos claims involving complicated issues of successorship coverage have also been addressed. The matter also involves a bankruptcy of the insured.

Represented insurer in claim for payment of clean-up costs relating to a former a dry cleaners site.   Issues of lost policies, the "sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion, and the right to pursue a declaratory judgment action against the insured while the clean-up is still ongoing are at issue.

Provided insurer with analysis of coverage issues relating to the application of pollution exclusions under U.S. Virgin Islands law and application to insured's tender of EPA action letter. 

In response to insured's tender of complaint for cost recovery relating to soil and groundwater contamination allegedly arising out of insured's transportation and disposal of hazardous waste, analyzed the applicability of the carrier's pollution exclusion, determined whether an public liability endorsement provided coverage, and addressed other coverage issues.

In connection with an insured's renewed claim for coverage for environmental contamination after a nine year lapse in communications with insurer group, investigated an alleged prior agreement between the insured and the insurer group, coordinated the joint defense group, and provided a comprehensive coverage analysis that analyzed issues relating to corporate successorship, assignment of policy benefits, applicability of voluntary payments and lack of notice provisions. Based on the results of the coverage analysis, a strategy was formulated for resolving the matter to the benefit of all parties involved.

Represented four excess insurers at varying attachment points in an asbestos claim coverage litigation involving complex allocation issues relating to unaggregated primary policies, stacking of underlying policy limits, and exhaustion of underlying coverage.

Represented insurer of a Catholic Diocese in connection with numerous molestation claims, providing a comprehensive coverage analysis and creating a resolution strategy. Instrumental in negotiating $100 million global settlement between the Diocese, insurers, and the claimants. 

Represented a major workers' compensation insurer in multiple cases in connection with recovery of unpaid policy premiums. These actions range from a policyholder simply being unable to pay premiums because of its despondent financial condition, to policyholders who undergo some corporate transactions and claim they are no longer responsible for the debts and obligations of their predecessors, to policyholders who allege claim mishandling, improper or inaccurate policy audits, or improper classifications of payroll codes by the insurance company. Our firm’s record in these cases is extraordinarily positive. 

Litigating a complex coverage and bad-faith action against purported assignees of insurance rights under policies issued many years ago to a single named insured. The multiple alleged assignees argue they acquired the right to make claims under the policies because they had obtained certain assets and liabilities from the original named insured in a series of sales transactions. The true corporate successor to the original named insured also claims it owns the policies in question and is likewise entitled to coverage under the same policies. Thus, the case involves a number of innovative arguments with respect to whether the successor of the named insured and the multiple assignees of various rights to make claims can actually "share" insurance. 

Represented an excess insurer in a complex asbestos coverage and bad faith action in which the policyholder underwent bankruptcy and settled with a great majority of its historic insurers under Section 524(g). The dispute with the remaining unsettled insurers involves the insured's right to demand "perpetual coverage" under the policies' unaggregated limits for operations claims, while at the same time, the insured's settlements with all of its underlying insurers were based on a premise that all claims were products claims. 

An insurer who paid several million dollars to settle an environmental property damage lawsuit on behalf of its policyholder later sued multiple co-insurers of the policyholder for equitable contribution. A dismissal was obtained for two clients after it was demonstrated that one of the clients had only issued marine insurance to the policyholder, as opposed to commercial liability coverage, and the other had no prior notice of the underlying litigation from either the policyholder or the plaintiff insurer.  

Successful mediation in favor of client insurer. In an underlying action, excess insurer contributed $9.0 million to satisfy a judgment that had been entered against putative insured general contractor. Client had insured the retrofitting subcontractor. The claimant had been severely injured when he fell down an elevator shaft. In a subsequent contribution/subrogation action, client insurer sought to recover the $9.0 million it contributed toward satisfaction of the judgment from the primary insurer for the retrofitting subcontractor, based on failure to settle the claim within policy limits. Client insurer also sought to recover from the general contractor's direct insurers. As to these defendants, client insurer maintained that the general contractor was not an insured under its policy because the underlying jury found that the accident arose out of the general contractor's sole negligence. By confidential settlement, this matter was successfully resolved to client insurer's satisfaction. 

Represented an insurance company in an action filed by an insured seeking reformation of an insurance policy so as to provide coverage for the business personal property of an entity that was not an insured under the policy at the time of the loss.   

Defended an insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith arising out of the adjustment of a homeowner's claim of smoke damage due to a wildfire that occurred near the insured's residence.  

Defending an insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith arising out of the cancellation of an insurance policy by the insured's premium finance lender.

Provided insurer with analysis of coverage issues relating to the application of pollution exclusions under U.S. Virgin Islands law and application to insured's tender of EPA action letter.

In response to insured's tender of complaint for cost recovery relating to soil and groundwater contamination allegedly arising out of insured's transportation and disposal of hazardous waste, analyzed the applicability of the carrier's pollution exclusion, determined whether an public liability endorsement provided coverage, and addressed other coverage issues. 

In connection with an insured's renewed claim for coverage for environmental contamination after a nine year lapse in communications with insurer group, conducted an investigation into an alleged prior agreement between the insured and the insurer group. Coordinated the joint defense group, and provided a comprehensive coverage analysis that analyzed issues relating to corporate successorship, assignment of policy benefits, applicability of voluntary payments and lack of notice provisions. Provided a strategy for resolving the matter to the benefit of all parties involved, based on the results of the coverage analysis.

Represented insurer of a local Diocese in connection with numerous molestation claims arising from temporary lifting of statute of limitations. Provided a comprehensive coverage analysis, created a resolution strategy, and played a key role in negotiating $100 million global settlement between Diocese, insurers, and claimants.

Coverage advice was provided to insurer in an underlying elder abuse claim. Most of the claims in the underlying complaint were not covered, but there was one claim for "bodily injury" so the insurer, with our advice, agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. The insurer then quickly settled the underlying case on behalf of the named insured. However, one of the insured's employees attempted to argue that she was entitled to coverage for a prior criminal restitution judgment entered against her for the same elder abuse claims. That party's attorney was ultimately convinced to refrain from filing suit against the insurer for no money.

Successfully secured a sustained demurrer to the insured's complaint against the insurer client for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The underlying action arose from the alleged mistaken euthanasia of a dog by client insurer's insured, an animal shelter. The insurer disclaimed coverage on the grounds that the allegations of intentional conduct resulting in "property damage" did not constitute an "occurrence" as that term was defined in the policy.  The court agreed on demurrer that there was no "occurrence" as a matter of law, and that therefore, the insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify the insured against the claims in the underlying action.

A motion for summary judgment was successfully obtained for our insurer client in a med-pay dispute.  In the underlying case, the insured, a non-profit provider of after-school activities for underprivileged kids, was sued when an 11-year-old boy was hit by a table and sustained minor injuries. The insurer defended the insured and settled the case. The plaintiff, however, demanded additional money under the med-pay coverage portion of the policy after he turned 18. The court agreed with our client on summary judgment that the settlement of the underlying case years earlier collaterally estopped plaintiff from obtaining additional med-pay benefits.

Defended an insurer in an independent counsel ("Cumis") dispute. Insurer client and another insurer agreed to defend the insured in a patent infringement case under a reservation of rights, because the underlying complaint included allegations of "personal injury" as that term was defined under the policy. The insured claimed the right to Cumis counsel. The other insurer was convinced to share the cost of independent counsel with our client. The case then went to early mediation, where a successful settlement of the underlying case was reached for mostly non-monetary, injunctive relief instead of extensive indemnity money. This cut off the Cumis obligation early. A satisfactory hourly rate for the Cumis counsel fees was also negotiated.

Prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer client arising out of a breach of contract/bad faith complaint. In the underlying action, a 14-year-old girl tragically drowned in an inner tubing accident. Her parents obtained a $5 million judgment in the underlying action. The insurer had issued an excess/umbrella insurance policy to the owners of the inner tube. Their adult daughter, who was with the girl on the inner tubing trip, sought coverage under her parents' insurance policy. In order for the adult daughter to be an insured, the inner tube had to be a "watercraft" as that term was defined under the policy. The court held that even if the definition of "watercraft" was ambiguous, it was not reasonable for the insured to expect the inner tube to be considered a "watercraft," and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer client. 

In a binding arbitration between a shopping center and client security company, an award was obtained that, despite contractual indemnity provisions in the contract between the two companies, the security company had no duty to indemnify the shopping center for an action arising out of a fight between two teenagers, in which one of the teenagers suffered a skull fracture and a traumatic brain injury. Client security company was also awarded its attorneys' fees for the arbitration. 

Successfully brought declaratory judgment action against other primary insurance carriers to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars in equitable indemnity for overpayment of defense costs and indemnity sums by insurer client.

In a claim involving a tender under client insurer's policies issued to the insured, a plastering contractor, the settlement demand was over $5.5 million. Selman Breitman reduced the demand to $4.01 million, a savings of over $1.44 million, then informally pursued other carriers for contribution. Contributions were received from other carriers, which significantly reduced the exposure to Client Insurer, resulting in a net savings of over $500,000. Dismissal of the coverage action was obtained, including a claim of additional insured coverage with a significant demand. 

In a case involving an attempt to obtain satisfaction of the judgment against client insurance company's insured, client insurer interpled the judgment amount, and sought offset of certain amounts. While plaintiff had a judgment against the insureds in the amount of approximately $400,000, client insurer's other insured had a judgment against plaintiff in the amount of approximately $250,000.  Client insurer asked the Court to offset the judgments. Due to various claims, three separate parties asserted that client insurer was not entitled to an offset. The case was litigated very heavily, with the various parties asserting priority. The parties stipulated  to a court trial. After briefing and argument, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to this matter, in which the Court ruled that client insurer had a right to equitable offset, and that that right to offset had priority over plaintiff's claims. Within hours of the ruling, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. 

Defended client against a complaint for declaratory relief filed by named insured, which sought a declaration that the "deductible" provision in the policy applied, such that named insured was responsible to satisfy only one deductible payment of $5,000 when there was only one party suing the insured. A cross-complaint for collection of multiple deductibles was filed on behalf of defendant client, since numerous parties sued named Insured in each construction defect action. On the eve of the trial date, named insured was persuaded to make payment to client.

Defended insurance company against a claim that client wrongfully denied coverage for plaintiff pursuant to various additional insured certificates and endorsements. Initially, the case involved approximately 20 claims, was expanded to include approximately 60 claims, and ultimately included over 180 claims. Plaintiff demanded $1.5 million for the original 20 claims. Settlement was negotiated for a very low amount, resolving any and all claims denied by client relating to any tender by plaintiff.

Judgment was obtained in favor of client on a subrogation claim made by client's landlord's insurer for property damage arising out of a fire. Summary judgment was obtained in trial court, and then, during Court of Appeal proceedings, a ruling was issued affirming the summary judgment. 

Obtained settlement of indemnification claim, saving client hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Represented excess carrier in claim against primary carrier that issued multiple policies and attempted to prematurely exhaust one primary policy to trigger excess coverage and avoid indemnity obligation under second primary policy. Declaratory relief action was filed, resulting in primary carrier abandoning its position and indemnifying the named insured under both policies. 

On behalf of a direct carrier for a general contractor, non-participating AI carriers were pursued, resulting in a defense reimbursement in excess of $1.6 million, without need for coverage litigation. A joint defense agreement was coordinated for all carriers to equitably share defense of general contractor between all insurers, with a duty to defend the general contractor. 

Three separate insurers were defended in a contribution action, with demands against each in excess of six figures. Claims against two clients were resolved for no contribution, and the third client for less than a six-figure settlement. Plaintiff's damages were minimized through the discovery process and coverage defenses. 

In a direct-action claim against a carrier by a claimant (11580 action) based upon a default judgment against an insured for mid-six figures, claimant was convinced to drop his claim in its entirety. In addition to defeating the claim based upon coverage defenses, claimant's inability to prevail on procedural grounds was established based on the finding that the default judgment was void as a matter of law.

Pursued co-carrier for contribution of defense and indemnity payments after co-carrier refused to defend and indemnify common insured in construction defect action. Co-carrier settled for six figures after being provided with draft complaint and cover letter setting forth specific grounds of co-carrier's wrongful denial of coverage.   

Represented a bobtail truck owner in a wrongful death case involving multiple fatalities. Obtained additional insurance coverage under trailer owner's policy to resolve claims and avoid bankruptcy filing. 

Client insurance company was granted summary judgment in a direct action by an additional insured for bad faith in Federal Court over a denial based upon policy language that had never been tested in the United States.

Represented insurers in coverage disputes, including first-party and third-party insurance coverage and bad faith claims. 

Summary judgment was granted in favor of client insurer in a case in which a general contractor of a large apartment complex filed a judgment creditor action, based on a default judgment obtained as a result of an arbitration award against the named insured. General contractor sought over $300,000 in satisfaction of the judgment, interest, and costs of suit, but was denied recovery on the basis that coverage was precluded pursuant to a "Development/New Construction Residential Exclusion."

In a multi-million dollar insurance bad faith action, the insured sought reimbursement for the clean-up of pollution at its aerospace testing facility. The key issue was whether the insured "expected" or "intended" the damage caused by its dumping of trichloroethylene ("TCE") and rocket fuel onto the soil which leached into the groundwater and surrounding neighborhoods. 

In a coverage action arising out of a $47 million construction defect action involving a resort, a voluntary dismissal was obtained when it became clear that our client was likely to prevail on summary judgment under an "Ongoing Operations" additional insured endorsement.

Prepared insurance coverage opinions involving claims arising under commercial general liability policies, broker/dealer professional liability insurance policies, excess liability policies and umbrella policies.

Represented excess insurer in multi-million-dollar subrogation action against co-insurers involving threshold legal issue of whether the general contractor was covered under an additional endorsement that did not apply to liability arising out of the general contractor's sole negligence. This action is currently pending in the complex division of the San Francisco Superior Court.

Advised clients regarding insurance coverage issues arising under commercial general liability policies, broker/dealer professional liability insurance policies, commercial auto policies and commercial property policies.

Prepared discovery motions in insurance coverage case involving coverage issues arising out of a commercial property insurance policy. The court granted the motions and awarded monetary sanctions.

Negotiated favorable settlement of a first-party bad faith action involving insurance coverage issues arising from a commercial auto policy issued to a trucking company.

Prepared demurrer in insurance bad faith action on whether the alleged underlying damages were caused by an "occurrence," as that term is defined by commercial general liability insurance policies. The court granted the demurrer without leave to amend, resulting in a dismissal of our client with prejudice.

Represented insurer in multi-million dollar insurance bad faith action, where the insured sought reimbursement for the clean-up of pollution at its aerospace testing facility in Riverside County. The key issue is whether the insured "expected" or "intended" the damage caused by its dumping of trichloroethylene ("TCE") and rocket fuel onto the soil which leached into the groundwater and surrounding neighborhoods.