Results

  1. Injury at sports facility where insurer refusal to defend resulted in $1,112,500 settlement paid by insurer.

    Our client was injured due to the negligence of the operators of a sports Facility. Our client hired an attorney and successfully sued the facility, obtaining a judgment in excess of the facility's policy limits. Their insurance carrier refused to defend the facility or pay the judgment. It argued that the facility's insurance did not cover the type of sports activity that our client had been engaged in. That's when we got involved. We sued the insurance carrier and the agent and broker that sold the insurance policy. All of the defendants vigorously denied liability, but we refused to back down. The evidence showed that the insurance actually did cover the activity and that the defendants had attempted a cover-up to avoid responsibly. The case settled a few months before trial and our client, the person injured, obtained the compensation owed.

  2. Patient abused by therapist where insurer refused to defend. Lawsuit against insurer resulted in a confidential settlement.

    Our client was abused by her therapist. The therapist had a business partner, and some of the abuse, called "teaching", and other negligent conduct involved the business partner and happened at the business partner's condominium. Neither of them had malpractice insurance, but the business partner had condominium insurance. Our client hired an attorney and sued the therapist and the business partner. The business partner's condominium insurer refused to defend. Our client obtained a judgment against the business partner of five times the policy limits, and the insurer adamantly refused to pay. We were retained and sued the insurance company and proved that the policy provided coverage for "teaching". The case settled confidentially for more than the amount of the judgment.

  3. Failure to pay amounts owed for water damaged house resulted in an arbitration award against one of the country's largest homeowners insurance carriers.

    Our clients suffered a major water heater leak at their home while on vacation. There was water throughout the house, condensation had accumulated, and mold had started to grow. They made a claim with their homeowner's insurer. The carrier sent out a construction contractor, a mold testing company, and a mold remediation company. If things had been done properly at the beginning, the mold should have been contained and eradicated right away and our clients back in their home within a few months. Instead, our clients struggled for over a year trying to work with the insurance company, mold testers, and the remediation company. As a result of the insurer's bad faith and negligence by the contractors, the mold grew out of control and our clients ended up living in a trailer. We got involved and sued the insurer, the contractor, and the mold remediation company. We uncovered evidence that showed the insurance adjuster ignored our clients' problems, selected contractors and mold remediation that served the insurance company's interests, directed the contractors' work in such a way that it made things worse, and unreasonably withheld benefits. Eventually, the insurer agreed to go to private arbitration where it admitted responsibility and all that were left to decide was our clients' damages. It agreed to pay all of the arbitration costs and our clients' attorney fees, too. We obtained a substantial award for our clients, plus attorney fees, and also recovered against the other defendants.

  4. Denial of coverage for claim on renter's policy resulted in arbitration award against insurer.

    Our clients lost virtually all of their possessions when water from a series of storms inundated their rental home while they were out of country. The insurance carrier denied coverage, claiming that water loss and damage was excluded. We proved coverage in arbitration and obtained a result more than three times the policy limits for contents coverage.

  5. Failure to fairly evaluate and handle underinsured motorist benefits and medical payments results in carrier settling action for bad faith for a confidential six figure sum.

    One of California's largest automobile insurance companies unreasonably handled our client's claim for underinsured motorist benefits and medical payments. Its actions revealed an attempt to oppress our client, who had suffered substantial losses and damages in a car accident caused by another person. The carrier knew that our client was especially vulnerable because she had lost her job had to take bankruptcy and lost her health insurance. We sued the carrier for bad faith after the underinsured motorist claim had settled. We recovered more than ten times the amount of our client's economic losses.

  6. Failure to pay underinsured motorist benefits resulted in lawsuit against automobile insurance carrier that settled for confidential six figure sum.

    Our client was run down in a crosswalk by an underinsured driver. Our client suffered fractured ribs, a spine injury, and nerve damage in one arm. The nerve damage developed into a painful, permanent pain syndrome which left the client with only limited use of the arm. Our client quickly collected the driver's policy limits of $15,000, and then hired an attorney to make a claim under the client's underinsured motorist coverage, which had a limit of $l million. Our client's injuries made working impossible, and the client had no family members to rely upon or financial support, but the insurer dragged the claim out, hoping our client would give up. Eventually, the insurer acknowledged the claim and paid its policy limit, but it took nearly two years. During that time, our client suffered severe emotional distress and hardship. 'I hat's when we got involved. We sued the insurance company and uncovered evidence that, while our client was in pain and could not pay for basic necessities, the lawyers that the insurer had hired defend the underinsured motorist claim were repeatedly telling the insurer about the high value of the case and recommending that it settle. Rather than listen to its own lawyers, however, the insurer switched law firms and fought harder against paying the claim. We uncovered evidence showing that the insurer only paid the claim when arbitration was near and its new lawyers had also warned it that the claim was worth much more than the $1 million policy limit. The case settled at mediation for a confidential sum, and our client obtained appropriate compensation.

  7. Bank that tried to defraud family by denying mortgage protection insurance settles law suit for a confidential seven figure sum.

    Our client, a widow, received mortgage protection insurance as part of the loan that she and her husband obtained to buy their home. The mortgage that secured the loan was transferred when their bank was acquired by one the nation's largest financial institutions, a bank that is considered "too to big to fail." Later they refinanced their loan with this bank and were reassured that the mortgage protection insurance was included. 1 hey asked for but did not receive any documentation of this. Later, the husband died and his wife and their family made a claim for the insurance benefits. The bank rejected the claim, claiming that the insurance had terminated when the loan was refinanced, and pointed to the lack of any documentation. We sued the hank as well as the insurance company that had reassured  the mortgage protection insurance for fraud and insurance bad faith. We showed a pattern of denial and deceit by the bank. The case settled after extensive negotiations for a confidential seven figure sum.

  8. Failure to acknowledge stated value coverage by insurer and its lawyers results in confidential seven figure settlement.

    Our client's home was broken into. Much of his collection of vintage clothing and valuable art was stolen. The carrier investigated and appraised the property that had been stolen. It paid the insured less than $50,000 for property that had been valued by art appraisers at more than $700,000. The Company urged the insured to "invoke" appraisal if he disagreed, and hired lawyers to advance its position and handle the appraisal. 

    Eventually we were retained and sued the insurance company. We showed that the property was insured for "stated value" and that the insurance company could not legitimately rely on appraisal as a means for determining payment on the loss. The case settled for a confidential seven figure amount.