Fourth District, Division Two, Concludes that Insurance Company Acted Reasonably, So Judgment and Brandt Fee Award Go Poof! Certain of our appellate justices write in their own distinctive and inimitable styles. Justice Sills is the author of the following 3-0 opinion that begins, “At first we did not know what to make of
Appellate Panel Affirms Trial Court Determination that Insurer Had No Obligation to Pay Hefty Fee Award. For your insurance coverage practitioners, the next one is for you. State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Mintarsih, Case No. B202888 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2009) (certified for publication) decided that an insurer had no
Fourth District, Division One, in Unpublished Decision, Strongly Urges Disclosure of Fee Arrangement Between Client and Attorneys in Brandt Setting. In our category “Insurance,” we previously explored an insured’s ability to recoup Brandt fees for pursuing the benefits of contractual benefits under an insurance policy. In fact, the co-contributors to this blog have written
Settlements May Depend More on Personal Contributions from Sued Officers and Directors, Reports Recent Article from The National Law Journal. According to Amanda Bronstad’s April 17, 2009 article, “As D&O Coverage Falls, Plaintiffs Lawyers Fees at Risk,” published in The National Law Journal and available for reading at LAW.COM, plaintiff shareholder actions—mainly securities class
PLCM Is the Leading Case Under Civil Code Section 1717, And Likely In Other Contexts. We would like to thank Michael J. Ireland, General Counsel of Majestic Investment Group in Woodland Hills, for this message: “I don’t know if there are many of us out there, but I would like to see cases discussing
Petition Pending in California Supreme Court One of the pleasures of blogging is that it is interactive, and we hear (if one can hear email) frequently from our readers. Jeffrey I. Ehrlich, one of the appellate lawyers in Ivers v. Allstate, 2008, WL 5197119 (3d Dist. December 12, 2008) (unpublished), a case reported by
Fourth District, Division One Decision Shows the Right Way to Do It! In our category “Cases: Insurance,” we have highlighted the Brandt fees apportionment issue for insureds obtaining fee awards in their favor for purposes of recouping benefits under their insurance policies. The next case is a good illustration on how to properly
Second District, Division Seven Disagrees With Reasoning in Younesi. In the absence of contractual arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution process agreed upon by the interested parties, Civil Code section 2860(c) mandates final and binding arbitration of any state court dispute between the insured and insurer over fees to be reimbursed to insured's independent
Third District Affirms Refusal to Award Any Fees to Insured Who Balked at Apportionment. Co-contributors Marc and Mike have written an article, “When The American Rule Doesn’t Apply: Attorney’s Fees As Damages In California Litigation,” published in 21 California Litigation, No. 3, at pages 19, 22-24 (2008), which has a discussion on attorney’s fees
Stipulated Amount of Fees Found To Be “Taxed Costs” Under Insurance Policy, Second District Holds, in Affirming Fee Awards Against Co-Insurer. We welcome insurance coverage practitioners to our site through our review of a Second District unpublished decision involving a co-insurer’s contribution for defense fees/costs and payment of a portion of the fees paid
