$2.755 Million in Fees Was the Ultimate Result Sustained Upon Review. Encarnacion v. 20th Century Ins. Co., Inc., Case No. B222313 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 31, 2011) (unpublished) was an arduous fight between certain parties and an insurance company over breach of contract/insurance bad faith relating to a $5.6 million wrongful death […]
Contract Litigation Insurance Version .2 – An Upgrade. In our August 3 and 6, 2010 posts and our March 8, 2011 post, we have followed a particularly intriguing insurance product geared directly to the issue of attorneys fees — Contract Litigation Insurance offered by Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency. We described the coverage in depth
. . . So You Can Now Cite It. In our June 2, 2011 post, we discussed Behnke v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., Case No. D056898 (4th Dist., Div. 1), which was unpublished at the time. The decision discussed Cumis counsel fees. We can now report that it was ordered published on June
Fourth District, Division 1 Reiterates Duty In Contentious Client-Cumis Counsel Dispute. In a decision that put an end to a long-standing dispute between a client and his Cumis counsel, the Fourth District, Division 1 reminds us that insurers are only responsible to pay reasonable and necessary defense costs to retained Cumis counsel. The
Substantial Evidence Showed That Insurer Did Not Agree to Defend, So No Trigger Of Fee Arbitration Rights. In The Housing Group v. PMA Capital Ins. Co., Case No. A127581 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2011) (certified for publication), insurer defendant was sued by plaintiffs for alleged failures and refusals to defend plaintiffs
Increased Attention in the Legal Community; Co-Contributor Marc Quoted in California Lawyer; Co-Contributor Mike To Speak At July 8 Century City Panel. In our August 3 and 6, 2010 posts, we discussed contract litigation insurance (CLI), a product being offered by Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency. We described the coverage in depth in those
First District, Division 4 Discusses Brandt And Routine Costs In Catholic Priest Molestation Insurance Dispute. Howard v. American National Fire Ins. Co., Case Nos. A121569 & A123187 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 11, 2010) (certified for publication) is a virtual primer for insurance litigators, involving substantial upholding of a substantial bench trial award against
Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency Offers New Products to Manage Litigation Risks. In our August 3, 2010 post, we discussed a recent article written by Kevin B. Martin in the August 2010 edition of The Orange County Lawyer. Mr. Martin is CEO of Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency, which offers contract litigation insurance underwritten by
After the Event or Legal Expense Insurance Is the Middle Ground Discussed. Kevin Martin, founder and CEO of Sonoma Risk Insurance Agency, has written an interesting article, aptly entitled “Leveling the Playing Field in Contract Disputes,” in the August 2010 edition of The Orange County Lawyer. In some statistics directly relevant to
Fifth District agrees the Case is “screwed up.” The story arc of this opinion begins at a low point, and plummets. “What the heck?I?,” begins the Court of Appeal opinion. “At one point, the trial court commented, ‘This is one of the most screwed up cases I’ve ever seen.’ We heartily agree.” Essex Insurance
