Insurance and Bad Faith​


  • Successful mediation of a matter pending in a direct calendar unlimited jurisdiction court in the Stanley Mosk Central Civil Courthouse in Downtown Los Angeles.  Plaintiffs were the owners of a large commercial multi-story retail property on a busy, major street in Los Angeles.  Defendants were one of the largest commercial property insurance companies, a broker working and licensed to work as an insurance agent, and one of the largest insurance services in the world, alleged to have an agency relationship with the broker of insurance.  Plaintiffs brought this action against the insurance company that insured their commercial property and against the broker that sold them the policy and the individual broker’s employer as agents of the insurance company.  Plaintiffs alleged that they notified their broker that the property was vacant since a tenant was renovating in preparation of a sub-tenancy, but were denied the benefit of their insurance policy as it contained an exclusion for damage sustained after 60 days of continuous vacancy.  Plaintiffs’ claim for damage as a result of vandalism was denied under the vacancy provision prompting this claim against defendant insurance company, company that sold the insurance, and the individual broker of insurance and employee of brokerage company.  The complaint included causes of action for the breach of implied covenant of good faith dealing, breach of contractual duty to pay a covered claim, professional negligence, and included a prayer for punitive damages as a result of the alleged bad faith actions of the large commercial insurer.  The issues involved the contractual provisions regarding coverage including vacancy exclusions and renovation exceptions.  Factual allegations regarding tenancy and sub-tenancy including the lack of a subrogation claim were part of the discussions.  The matter settled with the financial participation of all defendants except the individual broker.

  • Dispute between lessee of Bentley Continental automobile, valet company, owners of a Camry automobile, passenger of the Camry automobile, and insurance company.  Lessee of the Bentley gave her car to valet driver and returned from dinner at a Beverly Hills restaurant to find the passenger of the Camry had opened a car door on the traffic side to cause damage to the Bentley. Valet driver and company asserted the passenger of car who opened the door into the Bentley was negligent.  Lessee of the Bentley asserted valet company was responsible primarily and the insurance company that paid to repair the Bentley brought subrogation action against the owner of the Camry with the passenger that opened the door negligently into the Bentley.  Plaintiff brought diminution of value claim and loss of use claim.  Defendants asserted Plaintiff was not entitled to diminution of value since she was not an owner, but a lessee.  Expert for Defendants claimed Plaintiff’s claim for loss of use was excessive, despite the fact that the Bentley was a unique automobile with a unique color scheme only found in two Bentleys imported to the U.S.

  • Dispute regarding insurer’s denial of a claim because the insured failed to provide the requisite documentation of amounts paid for the inventory that was lost in the robbery.

  • Dispute regarding insurer’s denial of a claim for damages to real property caused by a fallen tree.

  • Dispute regarding allegations of bad faith by an insurer which did not pay policy limits for personal injuries from a freeway accident.

  • Dispute regarding allocation of attorney’s fees and costs from litigation between three insurance carriers.

  • Homeowner’s insurance subrogation action was brought by an insurance carrier against the parents of a minor who allegedly left hot oil on a stovetop and caused a house fire.