Source: https://www.horvitzlevy.com/insurance-litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:11:49+00:00

Document:
We have long been preeminent in the field of insurance appeals. We have represented insurers and leading insurance trade associations as parties and amici curiae in the appellate courts of California, in federal courts of appeals, and in many other jurisdictions. Our attorneys have handled literally hundreds of appeals involving cutting-edge issues of first-party and third-party coverage, excess and umbrella coverage, insurer defense obligations, bad faith, compensatory and punitive damages against insurers, and related issues.
Many of our appeals have resulted in groundbreaking and frequently-cited court opinions that have shaped the course of insurance law. In the California Supreme Court in particular, we have represented insurers as parties or amici curiae in the major insurance cases of the last two decades, including Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713; Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones (2004) 33 Cal.4th 917; Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of Hartford (2003) 31 Cal.4th 16; Hamilton v. Maryland Cas. Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718; Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobsen (2001) 25 Cal.4th 489; Kazi v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 871; Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines, Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390; Palmer v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1109; Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28; Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport. Indem. Co. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 38; Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1; Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645; J.C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M. K. (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1009; Prudential-LMI Insurance v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 674; and Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287.
Our partners have served on the Insurance Law Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California and, since 2006, we have provided that committee with regular summaries of California appellate decisions on insurance law.
Contact Peter Abrahams or Mitchell C. Tilner for more information about our Insurance Law practice.
Court of Appeal affirms that counsel for an excess insurer did not represent its insureds as joint clients in a tripartite relationship when attempting to negotiate a settlement on their behalf.
Qui tam action against perpetrator of insurance fraud reinstated.
Ninth Circuit rules on consequences of enforcing a money judgment pending appeal.
Ninth Circuit rules for insurer in bad faith and coverage action.
Ninth Circuit affirms partial district court judgment in favor of Insurer based on proper jury instructions.
California Court of Appeal holds that trespass to trees is not covered by a general liability policy.
Ninth Circuit reverses judgment against insurer, finding that district court misapplied Oregon principles of policy interpretation.
California Court of Appeal affirms judgment for insurer on duty-to-defend issue and reinstates insurer’s claim for reimbursement.
Nevada Supreme Court holds that homeowner’s insurance policy does not cover policyholder for intentionally punching someone in the face.
California Court of Appeal reverses $6 million judgment in insurance coverage dispute and orders entry of judgment for the defendant.
California Court of Appeal issues writ of mandate, directing trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of insurer in coverage dispute.
Court of Appeal reverses $4.6 million judgment on arbitration award.
California Court of Appeal reverses $12 million judgment in insurance coverage dispute and orders entry of judgment for the defendant.
Ninth Circuit rules for insurer in dispute over insurance coverage for $1 billion in storm surge flood damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
Petition for review asking the California Supreme Court to overrule Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785 to the extent it permits discovery of private non-party information that is not directly relevant to pending litigation.
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing against the proposition that tort remedies should be available when insurer has in bad faith retroactively billed an insured for an excessive premium.
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that covered “advertising injury” under CGL policy required widespread promotion to the public; insurer had no duty to defend insured against competitor’s action alleging misappropriation of secret customer list and one-on-one solicitation of a few customers.
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that insurer that defends insured but refuses policy limits settlement offer is not bound by stipulated judgment entered pursuant to settlement agreement between insured and third party not approved by insurer, and insurer is not liable for breach of duty to settle based on stipulated judgment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.