Cases: Insurance

Insurance/Section 998: Nothing Improper In Trial Court Considering Whether An Insurer Could Be Liable For An Excess Judgment In Evaluating Reasonableness Of 998 Offer to Insured

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

  Second District, Division 8 Is Not Going To Be First Court To So Hold to the Contrary.      In Aguilar v. Gostischef, Case No. B238853 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 13, 2013) (published), a plaintiff losing a leg in an automobile accident made pre-trial offers to attempt to accept defendant’s insured’s $100,000 policy limits […]

Insurance: Insurer Agreeing To Indemnify/Defend For Damages Does Not Have To Defend Insured Against Third Party Seeking Only Injunctive Relief

Cases: Insurance

  Local Santa Ana Appellate Court So Holds.      Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam, in San Miguel Community Assn. v. State Farm General Ins. Co., Case No. G047738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2013) (unpublished) on behalf of a 3-0 panel, framed the issue in this case and answered it as follows:      “Question: When

Insurance: Insurance Carrier Withdrawing Reservation Of Rights And Coverage Defenses Does Not Need To Continue Paying Cumis Counsel

Cases: Insurance

  2/7 DCA So Rules In Published Decision.      Swanson v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., Case No. B240016 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 23, 2013) (published) addressed this narrow but important issue for California insurance coverage practitioners: Does an insurer withdrawing all reservations of right and coverage defenses have to continue paying insured’s Cumis

Insurance: Carrier Found To Breach Duty To Provide Cumis Counsel Cannot Later Bring Unjust Enrichment Suit For Fee Reimbursement Against Cumis Counsel

Cases: Insurance

  Holding is Narrow, Not Barring Fraudulent Billing Suit of the Right Nature.      J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. A133750 (1st Dist., Div. 3 May 17, 2013) (unpublished) is an interesting case for insurance practitioners following our blog.      There, an insurance carrier was found to have breached a duty

Insurance/Section 998: Trial Court Did Not Err In Only Awarding $195 In Brandt Fees To Insured Or Denying Expert Witness Fees To Winning 998 Offeror As Not Necessary To the Litigation

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

       Often times, the abuse of discretion standard of review dictates results in cases involving fee or fee-shifting cases. That was the situation in Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Rick Concrete Constr. Co., Case No. D058134 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 8, 2013) (unpublished).      There, the insured requested $185,915 in Brandt fees,

Insurance: Although Brandt Fee Recovery Conceptually Available For Posttrial/Appellate Work, Plaintiff Waived Right When Filing Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment

Cases: Insurance

       The pragmatic end result of this next appellate decision is hard to argue with; after all, I think most of us (attorneys, judges, and the public) would think that a filing of an acknowledgment of satisfaction means just that–finito, case ended, no more exposure.      In Essex Ins. Co. v. Professional Building Contractors,

Insurance: Insured Had Incentive To Keep Costs Reasonable When Duty To Defend Dispute Occurred And Insurer Internal Billing Guidelines Not Contained In Policy Cannot Steer Fee Reasonableness Determination

Cases: Insurance

  U.S. District Judge So Rules in N.D. Illinois Decision.      We thank our friends at NALFA for calling the next decision to our attention (as posted on in their Attorney Fee Blog).      In Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., USDC, N.D. Ill. Case No. 09 C 7063 (June 10, 2012),

Private Attorney General/Insurance/Requests For Admissions: Insured Prevailing In Auto Insurer Action Properly Denied Fees Where No Large Class Of People Benefited And Plaintiff Failed To Allocate Fees Between Policy Benefit Work/Work Incurred In Proving

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Tort of Another

  Lack of Allocation Was Fatal for Brandt and RFA Issues.      Insured prevailed in a suit against auto insurer for making repairs rather than declaring the car a total loss. However, insured was denied requested fees of $500,000 ($250,000 plus a 2 multiplier) even though claiming them under one of three theories: (1) California’s

Scroll to Top