Results and Decisions

Appellate Decision

  • Jerry & Betty Douglas v. Fidelity National Insurance Company

    September 2014 Published decision in favor of Fidelity reversing and remanding for new trial a $ 836,000 judgment and upholding JNOV in favor of Fidelity on a 1.9 million dollar punitive damages verdict for rescinding and insurance policy due to material misrepresentations in connection with an application for insurance. The First District Court of Appeal agreed with Fidelity that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on agency which was critical to Fidelity’s defense and that instructing the jury that it had to find Plaintiffs’ made intentional misrepresentations in the application for insurance was a misstatement of the law.

  • Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co.

    October 2013, Published decision in favor of Pacific Specialty Insurance Company holding that a CCP 998 Offer does not require an acceptance line in order to be valid.

  • Roepel v. Pacific Specialty

    Following a defense verdict the court of appeal found the insurer properly rescinded the insurance policy.

  • Morgan v. Pacific Specialty

    The court of appeal affirmed non-suit in favor or the insurer on the grounds plaintiffs failed to complete repairs within the statutory time frame and could not recover replacement cost.

  • Otay Land v. United Enterprises (9th Circuit)

    The Federal District Court of Appeals remanded a cost award after the trial court failed to engage in the proper analysis awarding just costs.

  • Decena v. Pacific Specialty

    Reversal of 1.9 million dollar bad faith verdict including punitive damages award in favor of Pacific Specialty Insurance.

  • Heppler v. Peters

    Seminal case involving indemnity agreements in construction contracts.

  • Heaton v. Alindajao

    Alternative writ granted after denial of summary judgment

  • Pimental v. Pacific Speciality

    Summary Judgment affirmed in favor of the insurer after denial of a defense arising out of a bar fight.

Trial and Motion Result

  • Benyamine v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co.

    Settlement favorable to Pacific Specialty reached after 3 days of trial in connection with a bad faith law suit arising out of the appraisal process.

  • Douglas v. Fidelity National Insurance Company

    JNOV granted as to 1.9 million dollar punitive damages award. Ms. Burton was asked to assist after an adverse trial resulted in an award of bad faith and punitive damages obtaining JNOV on the punitive damages award.

  • Allstate v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co.

    Defense Verdict – Allstate defended a nasty neighbor dispute and PSIC declined. PSIC’s coverage position was determined to be correct.

  • Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co.

    Defense Verdict – 5 week trial. Plaintiffs claimed hidden decay in a sewer pipe caused a landslide at their home. PSIC denied coverage on the grounds sewer pipe was not the predominate cause of the loss. Plaintiff sought bad faith and punitive damages in excess of 9 million dollars.

  • Hoffman v. King

    35 minute Defense Verdict. Plaintiff claimed injures including PTSD after an alleged rescue of a minor. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of 500,000.

  • Roepel v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co.

    30 minute Defense Verdict after 5 week trial. Plaintiff claimed PSIC improperly rescinded her policy after a fire loss. The jury found Plaintiff made material misrepresentations on her application.

  • Morgan v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co.

    Nonsuit Granted. Plaintiffs sued PSIC for breach of contract and bad faith following a fire at their home. Summary judgment was granted as to bad faith on a finding of genuine dispute. After the presentation of Plaintiffs case the court granted non-suit on breach of contract.

  • Vanderhyde v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co.

    Defense Verdict after 4 week trial. Plaintiffs claimed they were underinsured in the 2003 wildfires and sued PSIC for bad faith an punitive damages.

  • Villa
    (Imperial County case no. ECU 03088)

    Obtained summary judgment in favor of insurer alleged to have acted in bad faith and breached its duty to defend its insured against a third-party dog-bite claim.

  • Espinoza
    (Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. BC407153)

    Obtained summary judgment in favor of insurer alleged to have acted in bad faith and breached its duty to defend its insured against a third-party battery claim where insured asserted “self-defense.”

Recent Articles

  • A Valid 998 Offer Does Not Require an Acceptance Line
    Read more
  • Love thy Neighbor
    Read more
  • Actual Cost Coverage or Replacement Cost Coverage
    Read more