Source: https://www.sheppardmullin.com/insurance
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:41:33+00:00

Document:
With more than 30 attorneys located in five offices, Sheppard Mullin boasts one of the largest insurance practice groups in California. We represent many of the nation’s largest insurers, including Liberty Mutual, Allstate, Travelers, Allianz, Safeco, Unum/Provident, Fireman’s Fund and Underwriters at Lloyd's.
The group also serves as national counsel for major insurers on institutional issues and other matters involving significant financial risk. We have defended our clients in class actions and other institutionally-important matters throughout the country, in both state and federal court.
Hung Chu and Tu Pham (as intervenor) v. Mercury Casualty Co. – We obtained a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Mercury, named one of The Daily Journal’s top verdicts in California in 2017. Pham suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of an accident caused by Chu, who was insured under a Mercury insurance policy with $15,000 limits. When Pham made a claim for his injuries, Mercury denied the claim because Pham lived with Chu; thus, he qualified as an “insured” under the policy, and the policy excluded coverage for injury to an “insured.” Pham eventually obtained a $333,300 judgment against Chu. Mercury then filed a declaratory relief action on coverage. The Court of Appeal determined that Pham’s claim was covered, ruling that the Mercury policy’s inclusion of people who live with, but are not related to, the named insured (“non-relative residents”) within the policy’s definition of an “insured” was contrary to public policy. Chu then sued Mercury for bad faith and injunctive relief, claiming that (i) Mercury was liable for damages in excess of $10 million because it wrongfully denied coverage and failed to settle Pham’s claim for the policy’s $15,000 limits, and (ii) the court should enjoin Mercury’s use of an “illegal exclusion.” After a 5-day jury trial, the jury rendered a unanimous defense verdict in favor of Mercury. After a one-day bench trial, the court denied Chu’s claim for an injunction.
Dorroh v. Deerbrook Ins. Co. – We obtained a summary judgment in favor of Deerbrook Insurance Company, an Allstate subsidiary, in a high exposure bad faith case in which Deerbrook was sued for over $30 million in compensatory damages, as well as emotional distress and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, based on the allegation that it unreasonably rejected an offer to settle a catastrophic injury claim brought against its insured for the insurance policy’s $15,000 limits.
Sarafian v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. – We won a motion for summary adjudication of bad faith and punitive damages claims brought against our clients Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. and Unum Group. Plaintiff Fardin Sarafian is a dentist who claimed that our clients committed bad faith by unreasonably terminating his claim for disability benefits despite that fact that his treating doctors asserted that his medical condition disabled him from practicing dentistry. The breach of contract claim remains to be tried.
McDaniel v. Government Employees Insurance Company – We won reversal on appeal of $4 million summary judgment against insurer client in case alleging bad faith failure to settle. The Court of Appeal ordered instead that summary judgment be entered in favor of the insurer.
QBE Insurance Arbitration – We won an $18 million binding arbitration award on behalf of QBE Insurance. QBE sued American Claims Management, a Third Party Administrator tasked with handling QBE claims in California, for indemnity and breach of contract.
McDaniel v. Government Employees Insurance Company – We won reversal on appeal of a $4 million summary judgment against our insurer client in a case alleging bad faith failure to settle. The Court of Appeal ordered instead that summary judgment be entered in favor of the insurer.
Petrozziello v. Thermadyne Holdings Corp., Employers Fire Ins. Co., et al. – Under Louisiana law in a case of first impression, we won reversal on appeal of a $1.5 million judgment with directions to enter judgment for insured in a coverage dispute involving the effect of the “separations of insureds” clause on the enforceability of an employee injury exclusion.
Acqua Vista Homeowners’ Association v. OneBeacon America Ins. Co – We won summary judgment in favor of our insurer client establishing non-coverage of a $21 million construction defect judgment against the insured.
Stevenson v. Rochkind – We serve as Allstate Insurance Company’s coordinating counsel for lead paint litigation pending against Allstate insureds in Maryland. They recently prevailed in a reported decision before Maryland’s highest court in Stevenson v. Rochkind, __ A.3d ___, 2017 WL 2952984 (Md. July 11, 2017). The Stevenson case has generally been perceived as landmark case regarding the admissibility of expert testimony in Maryland. In Stevenson, the Maryland Court of Appeals held for the first time that Frye’s “general acceptance” test for expert testimony is an “additional requirement” that does not apply unless and until the trial court first finds that the expert’s opinion is the product of a reliable methodology under Maryland Rule 702. The Stevenson case also represents the first time that the Joiner/Daubert “analytical gap” analysis has been imported by into Maryland Rule 702 and applied to the testimony of an expert witness whose opinion was not analyzed under the Frye test. The Stevenson court held that the trial court applied the wrong analytical framework, reversed a reported decision of the intermediate appellate court affirming a seven-figure judgment and ordered a new trial.

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