Discusses “Insurance Coverage Litigation: Who Pays The Legal Bills?” Part 4 of 4 [Links to Parts 1, 2 and 3] The last panel of NALFA’s 2011 Attorney’s Fees Conference on November 17, 2011 discussed “Insurance Coverage Litigation: Who Pays the Legal Bills?” The panelists in Panel No. 4 were Andre E. Jardini (of
Timing of Arbitration is the Result Here. Janopaul+Blocks Cos., LLC v. Superior Court, Case No. D059282 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 17, 2011) (certified for publication) is an interesting Cumis situation where an insurer did not agree to defend until 2 years after tender and, before there was a ruling on a Civil
$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 Co., Inc., Case No. B222313 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 31, 2011) (unpublished) was an arduous fight between certain parties and an insurance company over breach of contract/insurance bad faith relating to a $5.6 million wrongful death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 Co., Case No. D056898 (4th Dist., Div. 1), which was unpublished at the time.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
