Cases: Insurance

Insurance, Section 998:  Insurance Concerns Of Carriers, Although A Consideration, Are Not Ones Which Should Lead A Litigant To Reject A Section 998 Offer Outright

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

Carriers Can Protect Themselves, With the Offeree Needing To Press A Carrier To Help Accept A Good Faith 998 Offer. Insurance considerations are very important at all stages of a case, including mediation.  But they are no less crucial in evaluation of CCP § 998 offers, as the next case shows, because they can result […]

Insurance: Brandt Fees For Insured Had To Be Remanded Because Lower Court Conflated Duty To Defend And Duty To Indemnify Requirements

Cases: Insurance

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 May 12, 2025 unpublished; May 30, 2025 published), may have salience for you.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. 

Appealability, Insurance: Lower Court Did Not Error By Awarding $2,718 In Brandt Attorney’s Fees In A Contingency Case Based On The Cassim Formula

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Insurance

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

Insurance: Brandt Fees Properly Denied Where No Policy Benefits Claimed, Just Insurer Claim For Reimbursement Based On No Bad Faith Investigation

Cases: Insurance

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.

Insurance: Lower Court’s Rejection Of D&O Insurance Reimbursement Of Legal Expenses Was Erroneous

Cases: Insurance

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 Nov. 12, 2024) (unpublished), a D&O insurer denied a CFO reimbursement for legal expenses in a federal securities case and related

Insurance: Insured’s Brandt Fee Recovery Affirmed On Appeal Where Insured-Counsel Agreement Modified Before Trial But Disclosed To Insurer

Cases: Insurance

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

Insurance: Party Claiming Brandt Fees As Damages Impliedly Waives Attorney-Client Privileges As To Some Fee Information

Cases: Insurance

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

Insurance: Appellate Court Determines That Brandt Recovery Does Entail Routine Litigation Defenses In Addition To Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Insurance

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

Insurance: Intervenor Obtaining Substantial Contribution Into Insurance Rate Making Process Entitled To About $650,000 In Fees

Cases: Insurance

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

Scroll to Top