| |
| |
| What We Do |
Litigation
We are recognized across the country as veteran bad faith litigators who, regardless of the complexity of a given case, know how to articulate an insurer’s reasons for the actions taken on a claim. In appropriate cases, we demonstrate that skill by filing summary judgment motions to dispose of extra-contractual claims and challenge the claimant to offer proof that coverage might exist. However, we are equally skilled at making that showing at trial and, if necessary, in a court of appeal. In fact, many of our attorneys’ successes have been documented in published cases.
Advice of Counsel
When used properly, the advice of counsel defense can be a powerful weapon in a bad faith litigator’s arsenal. We therefore devote a significant part of our practice to providing legal advice about unsettled questions that arise in connection with disputed insurance claims. While our primary goal is to help clients better understand cutting-edge issues so that they can make informed claim decisions, our opinions also produce a more defensible claim file that gives clients a greater chance of prevailing in any extra-contractual litigation that may ensue.
Claim Support
The best way to avoid litigation is to make a claim decision that is both correct and supported by abundant evidence. To that end, we regularly support our clients’ claim operations by reviewing claim files for proper documentation and to identify promising investigatory paths. We also perform a variety of field activities for our clients, such as: choosing appropriate medical examiners and experts; coordinating surveillance activities; and conducting witness interviews and examinations under oath. When appropriate, we also serve as a local contact for our clients’ communications with regulators.
Mediation and ADR
As litigators, we have resolved hundreds of matters involving disputed benefit claims, questionable sales practices and allegations of institutional wrongdoing. In the process, we have earned a reputation for quickly mastering the facts of complex files, precisely identifying the important legal issues, and devising successful strategies for concluding all forms of bad faith and ERISA cases. As trained mediators, we use those same skills to provide alternative dispute resolution services that help parties facing similar disputes explore how to mitigate the costs of unpredictable lawsuits. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| Representative Cases |
| 2007 Established that life insurer has no duty to investigate a possible death claim until a legal representative is appointed for the beneficiary-estate [Estate of Grant v. State Farm Life Insurance Co.] |
|
| 2003 Established that California DOI cannot properly be joined to destroy diversity in disability income insurance claims litigation [Borsuk v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.] |
|
1997 Expanded California’s market for long term care insurance by establishing California DOI’s authority to approve of tax-qualified long term care insurance policies.
[Congress of California Seniors v. Quackenbush] |
|
1996 Used the Harris Trust corrective legislation to obtain the nation’s first dismissal of fiduciary and co-fiduciary liability claims against an insurer holding ERISA plan assets in its general account.
[Tool v. National Employee Benefit Services, Inc.] |
|
1992 Established that a change in premium is sufficient proof that a life insurance applicant’s smoking history was material.
[Kentucky Central Life Ins. Co. v. Marin Bay Park Trust] |
|
 |
|
|
|
