Cases: Insurance

Construction, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity, Insurance: Subcontractors Not Liable For Gen. Developer Defense Fees Not Relating To Their Work, And Equitable Subrogation Action Fees For Developer Not Recoverable Under Ambiguous Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance

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 […]

Allocation, Construction, Insurance: Lower Court’s Denial Of Any Fee Recovery To General Contractor’s Insurer For Defending The GC, Based On Equitable Subrogation, Was Error

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Insurance

GC’s Insurer Was Entitled To Equitable Reimbursement Of Defense Costs Relating To Subcontractor Work As Well As A Reasonable Allegation Relating To Reasonable “Mixed” Defense Efforts.             In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.), Case No. E068353 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 10, 2010) (published), a trial judge denied

Costs, Experts, Insurance, Section 998: Denial Of All But $11,753.94 Of Prevailing Personal Injury Plaintiff’s $83,048.06 Costs Request Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

An Invalid Section 998 Offer And A Failure To Reserve The Right To Seek Prevailing Party Fees In Agreements To Split Costs Sealed Plaintiff’s Fate.             In Anthony v. Li, Case No. A156640 (1st Dist., Div. 3 April 13, 2020) (published), a prevailing personal injury plaintiff, to whom a jury awarded $650,235.00 in damages

Costs, Experts, Insurance, Section 998: Trial Court Properly Awarded Costs, Including Almost $70,000 In Expert Witness Fees, To Successful Defendant After Plaintiff’s Rejection Of Defendant’s Section 998 Offer

Cases: Costs, Cases: Experts, Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

Plaintiff May Have Been Overreaching When He Followed Defendant’s $15,001 Offer With His Own $299,995 Offer Given Jury’s Return Of Defense Verdict.             Grayfer v. Wawanesa General Ins. Co., Case No. B285554 (2d Dist., Div. 7 November 18, 2019) (unpublished) provides a cautionary tale about the risk involved in overreaching and rejecting reasonable section

Construction, Indemnity, Insurance: Subcontrator’s Insurer On The Hook To Indemnify It To The Tune Of $1,532,973.87 In Damages And Fees, Plus Prejudgment Interest, Following Entry Of Default Judgment Against Subcontractor

Cases: Construction, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Insurance

Homebuilder’s Insurer Sued Subcontractor’s Insurer After Fully Indemnifying Homebuilder In Underlying Action For Construction Defect Damages and Attorney Fees         The Insurance Company of The State of Pennsylvania v. American Safety Indemnity Company, Case No. B283684 (2d Dist., Div. 8 March 1, 2019) (published) involves a dispute between insurers resulting from an underlying case. The

Insurance, Lodestar, Reasonableness of Fees, Special Fee-Shifting Statutes, Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees: Third Circuit Upholds District Court’s Decision Denying Entire Almost $950K Fees And Costs Request To Successful Plaintiff

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Amount Requested Under Bad Faith Statute Was “Outrageously Excessive” Allowing District Court To Deny The Request Altogether As Thoroughly Explained In Its “Well-Reasoned One-Hundred-Page Opinion”             Ouch! Talk about learning a lesson the hard way! In a precedential opinion for a case decided by Justices Greenaway, Jr., Restrepo, and Bibas, and authored by Justice Greenaway, Jr.,

Insurance: Insurer Providing Defense Counsel With Minor Reservations Of Rights And Offering To Make Policy Limits Settlement Did Not Have To Pay Cumis Counsel Expenses

Cases: Insurance

Insurer Did The Right Things, With No Conflict Of Interest Appearing And With The Insurer Obtaining Summary Judgment On The Cumis Issue.             Pacific Intercultural Exchange v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., Case No. D071478 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 26, 2018) (unpublished) is a textbook example of how an insurer treats an insured correctly such that

In The News, Insurance: First Circuit Court Of Appeals Decides AIG Insurance Must Reimburse Bill Cosby For Defense Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Defamation Suits Involving Sexual Molestation Cases

Cases: Insurance, In The News

Result Was The Same Under Massachusetts Or California Law.             In AIG Property Casualty Co. v. William H. Cosby, Jr., No. 17-1505 (1st Cir. June 7, 2018), the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district judge’s decision holding that, under Massachusetts law, AIG Insurance had to a duty to reimburse Bill Cosby for attorney’s

Insurance:  4/1 DCA Holds That Fee Agreement During Trial Determines What Brandt Fees Can Be Awarded To Prevailing Insured Party

Cases: Insurance

Posttrial Manipulation Of Fee Agreement Not Allowed, As We Understand The Opinion.             For insurance practitioners, Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Case No. D070478 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 30, 2017) (published) is a significant decision addressing what fee arrangement governs an award of attorney’s fees as damages under Brandt v. Superior

Insurance: Over $1 Million in Brandt Fees Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Insurance

    Trial Judge Got Allocation Of Policy Benefit-Oriented Fees Right.         Saddleback Inn, LLC v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s London, Case No. G051121 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2017) (unpublished) involved an insured which was awarded $2.8 million against an insurer based on a policy reformation as well as $50,000 in punitive

Scroll to Top