|
2275 E. Bayshore Rd., Suite 100
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 739-0200
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
RESOURCES |
| |
|
|
|
|
RECENT
NEWS |
|
|
Melinda Steuer in Forbes
June 15, 2011
Read Ms. Steuer's comments to Forbes Magazine on Variable Annuities:
Four Rules to Score Variable Annuities Win.
Securing Rights as An Additional Insured to Insurance Coverage for Environmental Liabilities
May 26, 2011
We successfully reversed the Superior Court of San Diego County in this complicated case involving the right of an additional insured to insurance coverage for environmental liabilities. We were working with fragments of a form insurance policy issued to a tenant named Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. who stored fireworks in underground bunkers on property owned by our clients, which was later sold to the County of San Bernardino. Years later, the County brought a lawsuit for massive contamination of the groundwater resulting from the release of chemicals at the site. The Superior Court found that there was no coverage because the policy did not specifically mention our client by name or by the location in question. In an uphill challenge to obtain a reversal, we successfully argued on appeal that the policy, when read as a whole, provided coverage for the owner of the property where the fireworks were stored. Our briefs explained the coverage to the court from both a technical and common sense approach -- arguments the Court of Appeal adopted. Read the opinion here.
Oral Argument in the 9th Circuit
May 15, 2011
Oral Argument in the 9th Circuit on May 13, 2011. Hear Jordan Stanzler's argument in Hinds Investments v. Team Enterprises. We represent the owner of a shopping center who has brought suit against the manufacturers of dry cleaning machines under federal and state environmental statutes.
Resounding Victory in Supreme Court of California
March, 2011
We made new law in Ameron International Corp. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, 50 Cal. 4th 1370 (2010). The Supreme Court ruled that insurance coverage was not limited to lawsuits filed in a court, but also applied to quasi-judicial administrative proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed rulings of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (2007).
Another Victory for Our Clients
January, 2011
The Court of Appeal held that our clients' claims against their former broker-dealer were not subject to arbitration. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's implicit finding that the arbitration agreements were not made readily available to our clients and therefore not incorporated into the contract between our clients and the broker-dealer. Nienstadt v. Vitucci, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9268 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. Nov. 22, 2010).
$2,500,000 punitive damages
We represented Professional Building Contractors after it had been sued by Essex Insurance Company, in a dispute over a construction defect claim. The jury in Los Angeles Superior Court entered a verdict on October 15, 2007, awarding $2,500,000 in punitive damages against Essex, plus $682,000 in compensatory damages, which included $320,000 in our attorneys' fees. The Court of Appeal later reduced the punitive damages equal to the amount of compensatory damages.
Expert Testimony
Jordan Stanzler recently testified as an expert on attorneys' fees and bad faith before a jury in Orange County. Griffin Dewatering Co. sued Northern Insurance Company for failing to defend a lawsuit brought as a result of a contruction project in which sewage backed up into a private residence. The insurance company denied coverage on the basis of the total pollution exclusion, which the Superior Court ruled did not apply in these circumstances. Mr. Stanzler testified as an expert on the reasonableness of attorneys' fees and the conduct of the insurance company. The jury awarded approximately $ 1 million in attorneys' fees and $11 million in punitve damages. December, 2005.
Coverage for Unfair Business Practices Defended
Many businesses in California find themselves being sued for Unfair Business Practices, under section 17200 of the Business and Professiona Code. Insurance companies typically argue that they have no duty to defend any such lawsuits. Chubb said so in the case of American Specialty Health, a managed care organization that provides services for chirporactors and their patients. Chubb refused to defend a lawsuit brought by an association of chiropractors, who complained about the billing and reimbursement procedures of American Specialty Health. Chubb reversed itself completely after we filed a lawsuit in federal court; they settled immediately in the case of American Specialty Health v. Chubb Corp.
Claims Made Coverage Protected
Insurance companies often try to limit the scope of coverage under claims made policies issued to professionals by claiming that separate claims should be combined into one single interrelated "super claim". In a case that garnered nationwide publicity after an FBI raid, over 700 plaintiffs sued various doctors at Tenet Healthcare in Redding, California, alleging that they performed unnecessary heart surgery as part of an overall scheme that included inflated Medicare bills. The insurance company for the doctors brought a lawsuit seeking to declare that all of the claims should be treated as a single "super claim", thus limiting the amount of coverage available to the doctors. We defeated that attempt to narrow coverage in the case of The Doctors Company v. Realyvasquez, Shasta County Superior Court.
Major victory for Client
We won a major victory for James Jones Company on the insurance company's duty to defend its policyholder under a general liability policy. The James Jones Company has been in the business of making parts, such as valves, for municipal water systems. A former employee filed a lawsuit under the False Claims Act alleging that the parts which Jones sold to hundreds of municipalities were sub-standard and leached excessive amounts of water into the municipal water supply. Numerous cities and water districts joined in the lawsuit. Jones' insurance company refused to pay for the cost of defending the lawsuit, citing a number of exclusions in the policy. We successfully argued that the insurance company breached its duty to defend, in what appears to be a case of first impression involving allegations of false claims.
Watts Industries, Inc. and James Jones Co. v. Zurich American Insurance Company, 121 Cal. App. 4th 1029 (2004)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
 |
|
All materials copyright 1999-2011 by Stanzler Law Group. All rights reserved. |
Disclaimer : These materials have been prepared by Stanzler Law Group for informational purposes only and are not legal advice.
This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Internet subscribers
and
online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. [ADMIN] |
|
|
|
|