Representative Cases

• Represented an insurance company and an agent of that company in a negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and Consumer Protection Act action brought by the insured, a former NFL player.  The insured alleged that insurance agent underinsured the value of plaintiff’s contents in his home, including plaintiff’s collection of NCAA and NFL memorabilia, which included original artwork as well as trophies awarded to plaintiff during his playing career.  The parties settled in an amount favorable to the insurance company and its agent after  filing a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the defense.
• Defended an insurance company client in a significant flood loss damages case. We needed the court to resolve a limits of insurance issue between the first and second layers of flood insurance that were available over the primary flood insurance provided by FEMA.  We successfully argued that the  $10,000,000 in excess flood insurance provided by Lloyds was triggered  as soon as our client, Travelers admitted liability for its $1,000,000 flood sublimit. The court of appeals agreed with our position and reversed the trial court judge who had ruled that Travelers' policy provided $11,000,000 in flood insurance. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Travelers Cas. Co. of America, 256 P.3d 368 (Wash. App. 2011).
• Represented an insurer in Insurance Fair Conduct Act litigation relating to file handling of plaintiff's underinsured motorist claim.  As a result of a detailed investigation relating to plaintiff's alleged lost wages and extensive discovery efforts regarding plaintiff's alleged injuries, we were able to settle plaintiff's $500,000 policy limits claim for well under $20,000.
• Defended an insurance company of in a insurance contribution matter.  Our client was one of many insurance companies which insured a condominium developer.  Our client paid more than its appropriate share of settlements of claims against the insured developer, but another insurer claimed that our client had not paid enough to exhaust its coverage.  The court held that our client had exhausted its aggregate limits and paid more than its share.  The ultimate result was a net recovery of $1 million for our client.
• Represented a commercial general liability insurer of a subcontractor in a insurance coverage litigation matter.  The subcontractor was named as a defendant in a Washington state condominium construction defect suit in which the owners’ association alleged $15 million to repair the complex, and the insured’s portion of this was $335,000.  Client and four other liability carriers were defending the insured under a reservation of rights. Client paid $1,750 of a $7,500 settlement.
• Represented the surplus lines commercial general liability insurer of a subcontractor in a insurance coverage litigation matter.  The insured contractor sued its surplus lines insurer, the surplus lines broker, and producing broker for premium refund alleging failure to comply with Washington’s surplus lines statutes, Consumer Protection Act violations, and professional negligence. Obtained dismissal of the surplus lines insurer without it having to make any payment.
• Defended an insurance company client in a case involving the disappearance of missing computer equipment that was not returned to the lender at the completion of the lease by our client's policyholder. We successfully argued at both the trial court and appellate levels that no property insurance coverage was afforded based on the unambiguous terms of the "Disappearance-inventory loss" exclusion.  NCF Financial, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 2007 WL 512545 (Wash. Ct. App. Division I - February 2007).
• Defended an insurance company client in a case involving significant damage by a contractor to the City of Oak Harbor's wastewater treatment lagoon.  We needed the court to resolve the issue of whether the claim was excluded from coverage. In a case of first impression, we successfully argued at both the trial court and appellate levels that the City's claim for property insurance coverage for damage to the City's wastewater treatment lagoon liner was excluded based on the standard  "faulty workmanship" exclusion in our clients policy. City of Oak Harbor v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, 159 P.3d 422 (Wash. App. 2007).
• Represented an insurance company in a case with coverage and extracontractual claims.  Our client’s insured, a manufacturer, made an error in packaging materials it shipped to its customer, causing the materials to mold.  The insured settled the matter quietly with its customer and told the insurer about the claim many months after the fact, claiming over $1 million in losses.  The Washington Court of Appeals, in a published decision, held that our client was relieved from any obligation to pay the claim because it was prejudiced by the insured providing late notice of the claim.   Key Tronic Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 139 P.3d 383 (Wash. App. 2006).
• Defended an insurance company client in a case involving the disappearance of missing computer equipment that was not returned to the lender at the completion of the lease by our client's policyholder. We successfully argued to  the trial court that no property insurance coverage was afforded based on the unambiguous terms of the "Disappearance-inventory loss" exclusion. The appellate court affirmed the decision based on a finding that the claims were time barred under three policies and the lender was not entitled to any benefits as an insured under a fourth policy.  NCF Financial, Inc. v. Webforia and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 2006 WL 2244328 (Wash. Ct. App. Division I – August 2006).
• Defended an insurer of a small business in an insurance coverage faith matter.  The plaintiff owner/insured also brought Consumer Protection Act, bad faith and Insurance Fair Conduct Act claims when she sued.  An arson fire had destroyed the business, and the owner made claims for loss of the building, its contents, and its lost revenue.  Our client denied the claim, and the owner/insured sued for coverage and bad faith damages.  The owner/insured asked the jury to award $6 million in damages and punitive damages.  The jury found for our client, and awarded nothing to the owner/insured. 
• Represented an insurance company in a bad faith and Consumer Protection Act action brought by the insureds.  The insureds alleged that the insurance company failed to pay for all resulting damage a lightning strike event and failed to perform an adequate investigation. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the our client; ruling ruled that the insurance company paid what was owed and investigated the claim thoroughly.  The court also ruled that plaintiffs failed to provide the court with any evidence to create a triable issue of fact.  All claims were dismissed.
• Represented a liability insurance company in an insurance coverage and bad faith matter.  The insured, a 35 year-old woman, was accused of a three-year manipulative sexual relationship with a minor boy.  When the boy and the parents sued, she tendered the case to the client.  The client denied the tender and the insured sued for coverage and bad faith.  We defended on the ground that the accusations were not allegations of an accident, which is critical for attachment of liability insurance coverage.  The U.S. District Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and our client was vindicated.  Schorno v. State Farm, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 3325873 (9th Cir. 2011).
• Represented an automobile insurance company in bad faith litigation over claim that delay in adjusting personal injury protection claim resulted in the insured's neck surgery being delayed, which in turn caused partial paralysis.  The federal district court ruled for the insurer on summary judgment, holding that the insurer properly and fairly handled the claim and did not cause injury to the insured.  The Ninth Circuit later affirmed the summary judgment order.  Sadler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2009 WL 234 (9th Cir. 2009).
• Represented insurance company in liability coverage and bad faith litigation.  St. Paul's insured was sued in a class action for "fax blasting," or unlawful mass marketing by fax machine.  The insured settled the class action for a judgment exceeding $17 million and assigned its claims against the insurer to the plaintiff class.  In the coverage litigation that followed, the federal court ruled that the insurer had no defense or coverage obligation for "fax blasting" and in answer to certified questions, the State Supreme court held that errors in claim handling in the absence of a duty to defend could not render the insurer liable for the amount of the judgment.   St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Onvia, Inc., 196 P.3d 664 (Wash. 2008).
• Represented an insurer which was being sued for breach of contract, bad faith, Insurance Fair Conduct Act, and Consumer Protection Act damages following a fire at his residence alleging he was owed additional money under his policy and that the insurer's delays caused him substantial financial harm.  The insurer prevailed on a motion for judgment as a matter of law and subsequent motion for reconsideration following the late discovery of plaintiff’s insurance fraud involving a forged lease.
• Defended an insurance company in an insurance and extra-contractual matter.  Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract bad faith, Insurance Fair Conduct Act, and Consumer Protection Act damages following a fire at their apartment building alleging that the insurer had underpaid their claim and forced them to bring suit.   The insurer prevailed at trial on all claims except a single technical violation of Washington’s insurance regulations pertaining to an appraisal award that was not timely paid. 
• Defended an insurance company in an insurance and extra-contractual matter.  Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and CPA damages following a one car accident alleging that the insurer's denial of coverage was wrongful.  The insurer prevailed at summary judgment on al extra-contractual claims except one, which subsequently settled for a fraction of what plaintiffs were seeking.
• Defended a high level excess carrier from contribution claims in an environmental liability coverage action.  We successfully argued to  the trial court that the claim could not reach the client's excess level of coverage by application of the "horizontal exhaustion" rule, which the court adopted.  The appellate court affirmed.