Sports and Recreation Cases:
Venue: San Mateo
County
Jury Verdict/Result: Verdict for clients
Case Name: McAvoy v. Sears Point International
Raceway, American Motorcycle Federation et al.
Clients: Sears Point International Raceway
and American Motorcycle Federation
Description: Plaintiff was rendered paraplegic
when his motorcycle impacted a restraining barrier on the track. Development
of track barriers had progressed at this time to the point that hay bales were
thought to be a significantly higher safety factor than the tires and metal guard
rail combinations which were present at the Sears Point track. Plaintiff contended
that the failure to lay out hay bales was the proximate cause of plaintiff's
serious injury. Experts were able to demonstrate energy and forces applied to
plaintiff's path would have caused the injuries almost to a certainty despite
the accommodations used by the racing facility or suggested by the plaintiff.
Venue: Contra Costa County
Jury Verdict/Result: Verdict for client
Case Name: Neil v. Antioch Speedway
Client: Antioch Speedway
Description: Plaintiff was a participant
driver at the Antioch Speedway operated by Contra Costa County Fairgrounds. During
an event, a piece of hard metal had been thrown from the dirt track injuring
plaintiff's arm and ending his employment as an upholsterer. Plaintiff demonstrated
the existence of a refinery site at the track prior to construction of the arena.
Witnesses testified to other pieces of metal that had been found embedded in
the track. Experts with regard to track maintenance and the efforts used to clean
the track provided sufficient grounds for defendants to obtain the appropriate
defense verdict.
Venue: Contra Costa County
Jury Verdict/Result: Plaintiffs accepted
defendant's earlier offer during trial
Case Name: Kintzer v. U.S. Soccer Federation
Clients: U.S. and local soccer associations,
and Orinda Unified School Dist.
Description: At the conclusion of a weekend
soccer game, plaintiff was asked to remove soccer nets from the metal soccer
goals at the end of the field. In removing the net, Mr. Kintzer tipped the soccer
goal forward, lost control of the metal frame which fell striking and killing
his two year old son. Plaintiffs contended that the goals were hazardous and
had caused injuries and even fatalities on prior occasions. Plaintiffs contended
that warnings or different anchoring systems should have been made a part of
the design of these soccer goals.
Venue: Riverside County
Jury Verdict/Result: Defense Verdict
Case Name: Cole v. Riverside
Raceway and Sports Car Club of America
Client: Sports Car Club of America and
Riverside Raceway
Description: Plaintiff Cole was rendered
quadraplegic as result of a spin out in a practice car race at a racing school
conducted by Sports Car Club of America at Riverside Raceway. Plaintiff operated
a small business manufacturing parts for aircraft and the Defense Department.
By reason of his injury, he claimed reduced ability to participate in the business
and had a substantial loss of consortium claim. Roger Ward, an Indianapolis 500
winner, was called to testify on behalf of the plaintiff. The standards of instruction
and screening of potential drivers for this hazardous activity was the substantial
issue in the case. The issues of written waiver and release were a significant
factor in the court's numerous rulings regarding the public policy interests
surrounding waivers of negligence in the matter. The operation of schools in
potentially hazardous activities was the most important part of the liability
case.
Venue: Contra Costa County
Jury Verdict/Result: Summary judgment for
defense.
Case Name: Sadowski v. Fremont Freewheelers
Client: Bicycle Club
Description: Plaintiff had been paralyzed
(paraplegic) as result of a bicycle fall on Mt. Diablo during a sponsored cycling
event. The case involved extensive litigation regarding waiver and release and
assumption of risk. Summary judgment was granted in this matter which was settled
during the appeal process.
Venue: Santa Clara County , 6th Appellate
District
Jury Verdict/Result: Verdict in favor of
defendants
Case Name/Date: Capps v. San Jose Unified
School Dist., et al.
Clients: Child and San Jose Unified School District
Description: Plaintiff was a fifth grade
student at a school maintained by San Jose Unified School District. He was injured
on school premises when he was hit by a falling "jalousie"window pane knocked
from its moorings by a ball kicked on the school playground. Plaintiff, through
his parent, claimed A traumatic brain injury, rejecting numerous settlement
offers and proceeding to trial. Plaintiff's experts testified that he suffered
from A biochemical changes at the cytoskeletal level, a then new theory of
brain damage that was discredited during trial. After lengthy competing damages
expert testimony, the jury found both the School District and the School not
liable. The judgment was appealed and upheld on appeal.
Venue: Alameda County
Jury Verdict/Result: Settlement for A nuisance
value
Case Name: Rodriguez v. California Youth
Soccer Association, Newark Soccer Club
Client: State Youth Soccer Association
and local soccer club.
Description: Plaintiff was severely brain
injured (30 day coma) following an automobile accident while returning to the
Bay Area from a defendant sponsored trip to a soccer tournament in southern California.
Plaintiff was in a vehicle that was driven by a team mate in a caravan of vehicles
supervised by the team's coach who was in a separate car. Plaintiff's vehicle
became separated from the rest of the caravan and was involved in a serious head-on
collision with a big rig. Plaintiff's claimed that defendants were negligent
in their supervision of the caravan, in their supervision of the team transportation
generally, and that defendants misrepresented the supervision of team transportation
to plaintiff's parents.
Venue: Contra Costa County
Jury Verdict/Result: Defense Verdict (partial
settlement)
Case Name: Injured Class v. Sun Valley
Mall, Beechcraft et. al
Description: A Beechcraft Baron aircraft
crashed into the Sun Valley Mall in Concord, California. The litigation involved
multiple parties and complex interests. The cloud ceilings at Buchanan Field
were alleged to be lower than the FAA minimums required to allow aircraft to
land. The physical configuration of the shopping center was an issue as to both
the construction of the buildings and the lighting on approaches to the runways
of the airport. The deceased pilot had been using medication on a regular basis.
Numerous deaths, personal injury and property losses were caused by the flame
and debris passing through the roof of the shopping center upon patrons below.
The crash caused the closure of a major financial center at a crucial period
during the economic year. Experts on pilot behavior, metallurgy, construction,
aircraft maintenance and operation, and electronic radio transmissions were all
a part of the lengthy trial. Testimony of test pilots and flight surgeons were
crucial to the evaluation of the conduct of the pilot during the approach to
the airport.
Venue: Santa Clara County, 6th Appellate
District
Jury Verdict/Result: Plaintiff's verdict
reversed on appeal.
Case Name: Glage v. Hawes
Client: Hawes Firearms
Description: Plaintiff had purchased a replica
1844 Colt revolver, .45 caliber. Plaintiff received a serious gunshot wound to
the leg while hunting in Paso Robles. The weapon did not contain modern safety
devices since it was constructed as a replica. Additional problems were encountered
when the written materials packaged with the pistol provided improper instruction
in loading and carrying the firearm. A verdict was entered in this case after
an 8-4 deadlock in favor of defendant was broken when one juror brought in the
definition of the term "preponderance" and related that term to the jury instructions.
The jury put butcher block paper on the wall and itemized items of evidence on
each side of the case. When it was determined that the plaintiff had more individual
points of evidence than the defense, the jury vote changed to a 9-3 verdict in
favor of plaintiff. Defendant successfully prevailed during appeal on the theory
of jury misconduct. This appellate case is reported as Glage v. Hawes Firearms
Co. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 314, 276 Cal.Rptr. 430.
Venue: Mendocino County
Jury Verdict/Result: Settled prior to trial
Case Name: Marazita v. Ukiah Fitness Center
Description: Plaintiff was a patron of
defendant fitness club and was injured while repairing a Precor exercise machine.
Plaintiff sustained fractures to his left fingers resulting in permanent deformity.
Venue: Alameda County , 1st Appellate District
Jury Verdict/Result: Summary Judgment,
Confirmed on Appeal
Case Name: Ford, Andrada et al. v.
County of Alameda, Alameda County Fairgrounds,
Description: Plaintiffs were patrons of
the Alameda County Fair on July 4, 1998 when a gang gun battle broke out on the
midway resulting in serious gunshot and stampeding injuries to multiple Fair
patrons. Plaintiffs claimed inadequate security measures were taken, that metal
detectors should have been installed at the gates, and that defendants County
(which provided police presence at the Fair and advised the Fair regarding security)
and the Fairgrounds failed to warn of a known dangerous practice of gangs congregating
at the Fair on July 4th. Defendants brought motions for summary judgment on the
grounds of (1) governmental immunity from liability under the Government Code
for discretionary planning decisions; and (2) governmental immunity from liability
under the Government Code section for police protective services; and (3) that
there is no duty, as a matter of law, on to warn the public of criminal conduct
of third parties, especially given that this particular criminal act was without
precedent at the County Fair. These motions were granted. Four plaintiffs appealed
the summary judgment as to the Alameda County Fairgrounds, on the ground that
the Fairgrounds was not a public entity, and therefore not entitled to claim
governmental immunity. The appeal was decided in favor of the Alameda County
Fairgrounds.
Venue: Napa County
Verdict/Result: Settlement for nuisance value
at trial
Case Name: Stanley v. County of Napa, Franciscan
Vineyards
Description: Plaintiff, an attorney, sustained
major head and other injuries when he fell from his bicycle after it hit a culvert
at the intersection of a county road and the driveway to our client's winery.
Plaintiff claimed that the culvert was covered in leaves making it impossible
to discern and claimed negligence in the ownership and maintenance of the culvert.
The county maintained and owned the property on which the culvert was built by
a prior owner of the vineyard property and with the county's approval. Most
causes of action against the winery were eliminated by summary adjudication on
the grounds of (1) implied assumption of the risk and (2) property owner immunity
under Civil Code 846. The remaining cause of action was settled just before trial,
with the majority contribution by the county, for nuisance value.
Products Liability Cases:
Venue: San Francisco County
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
Case Name: Grice v. City of San Francisco,
R. D. Werner Co.
Description: Plaintiff sustained very serious
injuries after falling down an open shaft when he fell off a scaffold upon which
he was working as a drywall installer. Several component parts from a variety
of scaffold manufacturers were used to erect the scaffold. The injury claims
were resolved as to the other defendants for a total amount in excess of $3 million
dollars. Our client was able to extricate itself for a very small fraction of
that amount, paying $50,000 which was applied to a worker's compensation lien.
We defended the action based on the defense of product misuse, spoliation of
evidence and failure to demonstrate a chain of custody of the scaffold said to
be at issue.
Venue: Contra Costa County
Jury Verdict/Result: Defense Verdict (partial
settlement)
Case Name: Injured Class v. Sun Valley
Mall, Beechcraft et. al.
Description: A Beechcraft Baron aircraft
crashed into the Sun Valley Mall in Concord, California. The litigation involved
multiple parties and complex interests. The cloud ceilings at Buchanan Field
were alleged to be lower than the FAA minimums required to allow aircraft to
land. The physical configuration of the shopping center was an issue as to both
the construction of the buildings and the lighting on approaches to the runways
of the airport. The deceased pilot had been using medication on a regular basis.
Numerous deaths, personal injury and property losses were caused by the flame
and debris passing through the roof of the shopping center upon patrons below.
The crash caused the closure of a major financial center at a crucial period
during the economic year. Experts on pilot behavior, metallurgy, construction,
aircraft maintenance and operation, and electronic radio transmissions were all
a part of the lengthy trial. Testimony of test pilots and flight surgeons were
crucial to the evaluation of the conduct of the pilot during the approach to
the airport.
Venue: California, San Mateo County
Jury Verdict/Result: Settlement at trial
for "nuisance" value
Case Name: Maninfior v. Krazy Glue
Description: Plaintiff claims that she sustained
a serious eye injury from a nationally known glue product. The product nozzle
was said to have been defective. The molecular analysis of the product as well
as biomechanical study of the injury pointed to the more likely cause to have
been plaintiff's failure to keep the glue tube away from her eye. Plaintiff
presented claims of significant injury and substantial medical specials. The
case proceeded toward jury trial and settled on the first day for $2,500.
Venue: Santa Clara County, 6th Appellate
District
Jury Verdict/Result: Plaintiff's verdict
reversed on appeal.
Case Name: Glage v. Hawes
Client: Hawes Firearms
Description: Plaintiff had purchased a replica
1844 Colt revolver, .45 caliber. Plaintiff received a serious gunshot wound to
the leg while hunting in Paso Rablos. The weapon did not contain modern safety
devices since it was constructed as a replica. Additional problems were encountered
when the written materials packaged with the pistol provided improper instruction
in loading and carrying the firearm. A verdict was entered in this case after
an 8-4 deadlock in favor of defendant was broken when one juror brought in the
definition of the term "preponderance" and related that term to the jury instructions.
The jury put butcher block paper on the wall and itemized items of evidence on
each side of the case. When it was determined that the plaintiff had more individual
points of evidence than the defense, the jury vote changed to a 9-3 verdict in
favor of plaintiff. Defendant successfully prevailed during appeal on the theory
of jury misconduct. This appellate case is reported as Glage v. Hawes Firearms
Co. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 314, 276 Cal.Rptr. 430.
Venue: Alameda County
Jury Verdict/Result: Settlement after trial.
Case Name: Roberts v. J.M. Manufacturing
Description: Plaintiff truck driver was
struck by pallets of 12 inch pipe being unloaded at a construction sight in Alameda,
California. The 12 inch pipes fell on plaintiff when metal banding holding the
pipes to pallets broke. The pallets and delivery systems were ruled a product
by the court along with multiple prior failure of pallets of the same type which
injured the plaintiff. [Products, PI]
Venue: San Francisco County
Jury Verdict/Result: Settlement
Case Name: Michelson v. LaTona
Description: This action arises from a wrongful
death which is said to have been caused by a food product served at a well known
San Francisco restaurant. Plaintiff decedent ingested the food but became ill
to soon for the defendant's product to have been the cause. Subsequent discovery
revealed that the injury may have been caused by a meal eaten earlier in the
day and the coroner who prepared the report of death admitted certain irregularities
in the handling of the autopsy. The other defendant restaurant which may have
served the alleged offensive meal was brought in so late in the action that they
were able to prevail on a statute of limitations defense.
Venue: Santa Clara County
Jury Verdict/Result: Defense Verdict
Case Name and Date: Diaz v. Litton , 1994
Client: Litton Industries
Description: Plaintiff was injured by conveyor
belt while attempting to remove a package from the line. We obtained a favorable
settlement with the plaintiff prior to the trial, but were unable to negotiate
a settlement with the lienholder. In a reversal of positions, we took the plaintiff's
position and obtained full compensation of the lien for our client. The case
involved extensive expert testimony on conveyor design and plant management.
Venue: Santa Clara County
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
at time of trial
Case Name: McAdams v. Spinal Design Systems
International
Description: Plaintiff was a retired technical
assistant with an extensive history of preexisting back pain. While using a "back
chair" designed by defendant Spinal Design Systems as a physical therapy tool,
a strap supporting his full weight broke and he fell, landing on the seat. Plaintiff
claimed that the back chair "failed" due to various design and manufacturing
defects and attributed all back pain since the accident to the circumstances
of the accident. A highly favorable arbitration award was obtained owing to evidence
of misuse and malingering.
Venue: Monterey County
Jury Verdict/Result: Settled during trial
Case Name: Zavala v. Western Atlas Inc.
Description: Industrial injury. Plaintiff
was working near a conveyor line at a Monterey County winery when her hair got
caught in a full case conveyor system. It was determined that she was not wearing
a hairnet or other protective gear at the time of the accident. Her hair, which
was waist-length, was caught in the rollers of the full case conveyor which continued
to operate, removing the scalp from her head and resulting in the need for extensive
surgical repair. Issues of contribution by co-defendants were litigated in limine
resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.
Premises and/or Personal Injury Cases (Non-sports):
Venue: Mendocino County
Jury Verdict/Result: Settled prior to trial
Case Name: Marazita v. Ukiah Fitness Center
Description: Plaintiff was a patron of
defendant fitness club and was injured while repairing a Precor exercise machine.
Plaintiff sustained fractures to his left fingers resulting in permanent deformity.
Venue: Alameda County
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
Case Name: Davis v. Signature Theatre
Description: Plaintiff claimed "eggshell"
status due to pre-existing arterial venous malformation resulted in brain damage
after slip/fall at movie theatre. Issues of duty as between tenant (our client)
and owner of property were resolved favorably and plaintif's claim was settled
for nuisance value.
Venue: Santa Clara County
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
Case Name: Glissmeyer v. Nordstrom
Description: Plaintiff tripped over wires
and fell in a Nordstrom department store. Issues of duty as between owner of
premises and subcontrator working in the area were resolved and a favorable settlement
was reached regarding plaintif's claim following arbitration.
Venue: Fresno County
Jury Verdict/Result: Defense verdict
Case Name: Mejia v. Britz Farming
Description: Plaintiff was a temporary farm
worker hired to harvest tomatoes for a large central valley farming business.
Plaintiff was crushed and received severe orthopedic injuries with permanent
residual effects when he failed to move out of the way of large oncoming farm
equipment. At trial, it was demonstrated that defendant was the plaintiff's
"special employer" and that therefore plaintif's exclusive remedy was in workers
compensation.
Venue: San Mateo County
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
following mediation
Case Name: Cruda v. Reynolds Metals, et
al.
Description: Plaintiff was a temporary worker
who was called from his line job by his employer to assist in the unloading of
pallets of heavy sheet metal. Plaintiff was used as "ballast" to balance the
pallets as they were lifted off the truck. Defendant was the company that manufactured
and delivered the sheet metal to plaintif's employer. Several witnesses testified
that defendant's driver was in a hurry and pressured plaintif's employer to
expedite the unloading process although the appropriate equipment was not available.
However, other witnesses testified that it was plaintiff's employer's decision
to proceed without the appropriate equipment. Unloading without the appropriate
equipment violated company policy. Ultimately, plaintiff's employer was the
one in control of the plaintiff.
Venue: San Francisco County
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
following arbitration award
Case Name: Kishimoto v. The Olympic Club
Description: Plaintiff tripped and fell at
the Olympic Club. Nuisance value settlement was achieved following successful
arbitration award.
Venue: San Francisco County
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
during trial just prior to verdict
Case Name: Goldwater v. Jewish Community
Federation of San Francisco, et al.
Description: Plaintiffs were the family of
an elderly man who died following an accident involving the van in which he was
being transported from his home to the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco.
The van was owned by and the driver employed by the defendant. His survivors
brought a case for wrongful death on the ground that the wheelchair-bound decedent
was not properly secured in the van and that the van was driven negligently.
The case was tried and a settlement was reached just prior to the reading of
the jury's verdict. The jury's verdict was lower than the amount of the settlement.
Venue: San Francisco County
Jury Verdict/Result: Summary Judgment
Case Name: Fullah v. Stonestown Galleria,
Sam Goody's
Description: Plaintiff was a patron of a
record store at a mall in San Francisco. He was asked to leave the store following
a verbal altercation with the store manager, originally alleged to be a physical
fight. Plaintiff was later arrested by mall security and taken into custody by
the San Francisco Police Department. He sued the store and the mall alleging
(1) assault and battery; (2) false imprisonment; (3) negligence; (4) intentional
infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent hiring; (6) negligent infliction
of emotional distress. Summary judgment was obtained for our client, Sam Goody's,
on the grounds that (1) reports to police are privileged, (2) the qualified privilege
of a common interest report, and (3) the plaintiff's deposition testimony contradicted
the allegations in the complaint of intentional torts, including false imprisonment,
assault & battery, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
Venue: San Mateo County
Jury Verdict/Result: Summary judgment
Case Name: Madigan, Kaluza v. Chan, C.C.
Myers, Inc.
Description: Wrongful death action brought
by parents of a construction worker against general contractor. Decedent was
the employee of a subcontractor working at night along Highway 101 and was killed
after being hit by a vehicle. Plaintiffs claimed that general contractor negligently
failed to schedule and coordinate work at the site and negligently failed to
implement proper traffic controls and diversion methods at the site which created
a dangerous condition resulting in the death of their decedent. Summary judgment
was obtained for the general contractor on Privette grounds in that
the general contractor did not retain control over the employees of its subcontractor
and also had no notice of the conditions leading to decedent's death.
Venue: Multiple
Clients: Rental vehicle owners and drivers
Description: The firm has successfully and
efficiently handled hundreds of cases involving various theories brought against
owners and drivers of rental automobiles, including all aspects of coverage,
liability, and numerous theories of damages. We have had great success in resolving
the majority of these cases efficiently through alternative dispute resolution
processes. A case does not get tried unless all other means of resolution have
been exhausted.
Public Entity Liability Cases
Venue: Contra Costa County
Jury Verdict/Result: Plaintiffs accepted
defendant's earlier offer during trial
Case Name: Kintzer v. U.S. Soccer Federation,
Orinda Unified School Dist.
Clients: U.S. and local soccer associations,
and Orinda Unified School Dist.
Description: At the conclusion of a weekend
soccer game, plaintiff was asked to remove soccer nets from the metal soccer
goals at the end of the field. In removing the net, Mr. Kintzer tipped the soccer
goal forward, lost control of the metal frame which fell striking and killing
his two year old son. Plaintiffs contended that the goals were hazardous and
had caused injuries and even fatalities on prior occasions. Plaintiffs contended
that warnings or different anchoring systems should have been made a part of
the design of these soccer goals.
Venue: Santa Clara County , 6th Appellate
District
Jury Verdict/Result: Verdict in favor of
defendants
Case Name/Date: Capps v. San Jose Unified
School Dist., et al.
Description: Plaintiff was a fifth grade
student at a school maintained by San Jose Unified School District. He was injured
on school premises when he was hit by a falling "jalousie" window pane
knocked from its moorings by a ball kicked on the school playground. Plaintiff,
through his parent, claimed traumatic brain injury, rejecting numerous settlement
offers and proceeding to trial. Plaintiff's experts testified that he suffered
from biochemical changes at the cytoskeletal level, a then new theory of
brain damage that was discredited during trial. After lengthy competing damages
expert testimony, the jury found both the School District and the School not
liable. The judgment was appealed and upheld on appeal.
Case Type : Water damage (inverse condemnation,
negligence, nuisance, trespass, mandatory duty, dangerous condition of public
property)
Venue: Monterey County
Jury Verdict/Result: Motion for Summary
Judgment resulting in favorable settlement
Case Name and Date: Borde v. Monterey County,
et al.
Description: Plaintiffs, residents of the
City of Carmel in an area bordering the Carmel River, brought suit against multiple
public entities following two successive massive flooding events. Our motion
for summary judgment brought on behalf of client the City of Carmel allowed for
the successful and highly favorable settlement of a multitude of highly complex
water damage claims involving interlocking theories of flood and surface water
damage. Plaintiffs alleged numerous tort causes of action against all defendants
as well as inverse condemnation against the public entity defendants and claimed
$12 million in damages.
Venue: Alameda County , 1st Appellate District
Jury Verdict/Result: Summary Judgment,
Confirmed on Appeal
Case Name: Ford, Andrada et al. v.
County of Alameda, Alameda County Fairgrounds,
Description: Plaintiffs were patrons of
the Alameda County Fair on July 4, 1998 when a gang fight broke out on the midway,
involving gunfire, resulting in injury to Fair patrons. Plaintiffs claimed inadequate
security measures were taken, that metal detectors should have been installed
at the gates, and that defendants County (which provided police presence at the
Fair and advised the Fair regarding security) and the Fairgrounds failed to warn
of a known dangerous practice of gangs congregating at the Fair on July 4th.
Defendants brought motions for summary judgment on the grounds of (1) governmental
immunity from liability under the Government Code for discretionary planning
decisions; and (2) governmental immunity from liability under the Government
Code section for police protective services; and (3) that there is no duty, as
a matter of law, on its part to warn the public of criminal conduct of third
parties, especially given that this particular criminal act was without precedent
at the County Fair. These motions were granted. Four plaintiffs appealed the
summary judgment as to the Alameda County Fairgrounds, on the ground that the
Fairgrounds was not a public entity, and therefore not entitled to claim governmental
immunity. The appeal was decided in favor of the Alameda County Fairgrounds.
Professional Liability Cases:
Venue: Santa Clara Superior Court
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
Case Name: DeStefano v. State Farm Insurance,
et al.
Description: Plaintiff sued State Farm Insurance
and its claims adjuster on multiple theories after an investigation of plaintiff's
claim for insurance benefits following a burglary resulted in a report of suspected
fraud. The report of suspected fraud was conveyed by a third party to plaintiff's
employer. Plaintiff was terminated from his position as a county fraud investigator
following the county's separate investigation of the report of suspected fraud.
Defendants contended that their report was subject to immunity under the Insurance
Fraud Prevention Act and the Civil Code, that the report was not motivated by
malice, and that there was no causal link between the report and the plaintiff's
termination.
Venue: Los Angeles and Alameda Superior
Courts
Jury Verdict/Result: Dismissal of one case;
other cases pending
Case Name(s): Clergy I and Clergy III
Description: Claims of sexual battery of
minor children by Catholic priests, and intentional and negligent malfeasance
by employing church entities. Claims are decades old but are allowed to be brought
due to repeated legislative amendment of the statute of limitations to allow
for retroactive revival of the cause of action. Dismissal of one claim due to
plaintiff's failure to fulfill the requirements of even the amended statute
of limitations.
Employment Cases:
Venue: Santa Clara Superior Court
Jury Verdict/Result: Favorable settlement
just before trial
Case Name: Dundon v. Litton
Description: Plaintiff accused our client
and his employer of sexual harassment and other intentional torts. Co-employees
were divided as to whether or not plaintiff's claims were legitimate as the
alleged perpetrator was not a well-liked individual.
Coverage Cases:
Venue: Santa Clara County
Jury Verdict/Result: Full recovery for client
Case Name: Industrial Indemnity v. "Insurance
Carrier"
Client: Industrial Indemnity
Description: Industrial Indemnity sought
to obtain contribution on its settlement with plaintiffs in an automobile collision.
"Insurance Carrier" refused to accept a portion of fault for a collision on
a rural highway in which Industrial Indemnity's insured had entered the intersection
improperly, but in which defendant's insured failed to take evasive action.
The jury awarded a sufficient percentage to require payment of the limits of
the indemnifying insuring agreements.
Venue: San Francisco County
Jury Verdict/Result: Two week binding arbitration
resulting in payment of benefits to client
Case Name: Bernard v. Buena Vista
Description: Buena Vista remodeled a nine-unit
apartment building for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs refused to pay for the final portion
of construction alleging construction defect and resultant damage. This complex
case involved experts in all areas of construction including construction management,
contract delay, and liabilities under standard architectural and construction
agreements. This arbitration which took more than two weeks resulted in a payment
of contract benefits to our client. Construction defect award mitigated by setoff
of contract damages for positive result to the firm's client.
Venue: Santa Clara County
Jury Verdict/Result: Court verdict for CIGNA
Case Name: A Insurance Carrier @ v. CIGNA
Description: In an earlier underlying case
entitled Davis v. Acme, the defendant, represented by our firm, was found not
to be responsible for injury to the plaintiff. A co-defendant which bore a portion
of the verdict result brought litigation against our client = s insurer, CIGNA,
on an indemnity and "other insurance" clause in the contract and insuring agreements.
This involved presentation of coverage and interpretation to the court for ultimate
determination. The court decision was in our client's favor.
Venue: Santa Cruz County
Jury Verdict/Result: Arbitration ruling
in favor of Kemper.
Case Name: "Insurance Carrier" v. Kemper
Description: The "one-hundred year" rains
caused a number of serious slide problems in Santa Cruz County. One such slide
involved a number of homes and the deaths of numerous residents in Felton, California.
The causation of this slide became an issue with regard to limits paid on a number
of policies of both the homeowners and landowners of the area in which the slide
occurred. This action involved a claim for a policies proceeds of a neighboring
landowner. We were able to convince the arbitrator that all fault for the slide
should be born by the insurance carrier which had brought an action for indemnity
against Kemper. Kemper was absolved of all liability with regard to the slide
damage. The case involved experts in slide mechanics and extensive investigation
to determine the cause of the slide as well as coverage issues.
Case Type : Insurance Code Issues/Medical
Malpractice
Venue: San Mateo County
Jury Verdict/Result: Bifurcated Trial:
First Phase: Court Trial granted judgment in favor of CIGNA.
Second Phase: Pending as of September 12, 1997.
Case Name: "Plaintiff" v. Fictitious
Estate (Action for Proceeds of CIGNA Policy)
Description: Complicated medical malpractice
wrongful death suit which was filed directly against the professional liability
insurer per Probate Code 550. The insurer is alleged to have provided coverage
for a doctor who had been found negligent in 1978 in a jury trial in Monterey
County. The patient later died as did the doctor who performed the surgery in
the 1970s. In his lifetime the patient incurred over $600,000 in medical damages.
According to statute, the heirs served the insurance carrier directly seeking
the limits of insurance and making a CCP 998 demand for nearly $700,000. CIGNA
was the only insurer of several who provided coverage to the doctor during his
lifetime. At the first phase of the bifurcated trial it was successfully argued
that CIGNA could not be held liable for untimely claims of damages due to the
lack of notice to the carrier of the losses which began to be incurred in the
1980s. Also, the court found that even if the heirs could establish injury aside
from those which were not timely present, there is no determination that this
insurer would owe any judgment. The plaintiffs have reduced their CCP 998 to
$250,000.
Construction Defect Litigation Cases:
Case Type : Construction Defect
Venue: County of San Francisco
Jury Verdict/Result: Binding arbitration
resulted in a payment of contract benefits
Case Name and Date: Bernard v. Buena Vista
Description: Buena Vista remodeled
a nine-unit apartment building for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs refused to pay for
the final portion of the million dollar construction contract alleging construction
defect and resultant damage. This complex case involved experts in all areas
of construction including construction management, contract delay, and liabilities
under standard architectural and construction agreements.
Case Type :
Construction Defect (multiple cases)
Venue: County of San Francisco
Jury Verdict/Result: Settlement
Case Name and Date: Various Homeowners v.
General Contractor
Description: General contractor made extensive
renovations to two high-end single family homes in San Francisco. Homeowners
sued claiming multiple perceived construction defects and contract violations,
relying on the application of the California Business & Professions codes
sections relating to "home improvement" contractors.
|
