Those Two Duties Are Very Different. For insurance coverage and bad faith practitioners, Bartel v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., Case No. H052083 (6th Dist. May 12, 2025 unpublished; May 30, 2025 published), may have salience for you. There, in a very complicated case, some Brandt fees were awarded for some discrete periods of time. […]
Lodestar Analysis Does Not Apply In A Brandt Contingency Case Situation. Under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985), a jury or lower court (via a posttrial stipulation for the court) can award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff as damages in an insurance case limited to the time spent to recover the
Theory Of Recovery Is Key In This Area. Many times, the theory of recovery is a key for attorney’s fees recoupment. That is more so when an insured requests Brandt fees, with the theory needing to be calibrated to policy benefit recovery by the insured. That did not happen in William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Non-Indemnifiable Legal Expenses Are Usually Recouped Under D&O Policies, With Restitutionary Damages and Insurance Code Section 533 Exclusions Not Dictating Otherwise. In Jasper v. Chubb National Ins. Co., Case No. H050804 (6th Dist. Nov. 12, 2024) (unpublished), a D&O insurer denied a CFO reimbursement for legal expenses in a federal securities case and related
No Manipulation Of Fees Shown, With Insurer Not Having Standing To Challenge The Fee Agreement As Unconscionable. Wietsma v. Foremost Ins. Co. of Grand Rapids, MI, Case No. C097885 (3d Dist. May 30, 2024) (unpublished) involved challenges to a Brandt fee recovery by the insured, although in a much reduced fashion from the original
However, Appellate Court Indicated Some Redactions Were In Order And No Bifurcation Was Required As To Liability Versus Reasonableness Of Fees. Byers v. Superior Court, Case No. A169321 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 7, 2024) (published) posed this issue and answered it: Does a party seeking attorney’s fees as damages under Brandt v. Superior
Although Damages At The Trial Level, Appellate Fees Decided By Lower Court Upon An Appropriate Motion. In Borjon Auto Center King City, Inc. v. Sentry Select Ins. Co., Case No. H048021 et seq. (6th Dist. May 31, 2023) (unpublished), the Sixth District entertained the issue of whether Brandt (see our Leading Case No. 11)
Analysis Of Other Cases So Confirmed. In Vallejo v. Fire Ins. Exchange, Case No. C091547 (3d Dist. Nov. 21, 2022) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal faced a narrow issue: under Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 813 (1985), does an insurer receive routine litigation expenses as a recovery in addition to attorney’s fees to
Proposition 103 Fee-Shifting Provision Was Liberally Construed In Favor Of Intervenor “Watch Dogs.” State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lora, Case No. D077731 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 29, 2021) (published) is one of the first decisions under Proposition 103, which has a fee-shifting provision allowing an award of advocacy fees to a consumer
At The End, Joint/Several Liability Theory On The First Issue Was Rejected, And Ambiguity Construed Against Developer Drafter On The Second Issue. This next post might interest construction and insurance practitioners, although it involves the interesting intersection of contractual and insurance equitable subrogation issues—with complexities teeming! In Berg v. Pulte Home Corp., Case
