Barbanel & Treuer, P.C. View Some Of The Important Cases Barbanel & Treuer, P.C. Have Been Successful In

B&T’s clients prevailed in the following cases that established important rules of law and resulted in significant victories.

2014

US district court has removal jurisdiction over claims by an employer that is self-insured for workers’ compensation against its excess insurer. The anti-removal statute, 28 U.S.C.1445(c), did not apply because such claims arise under state contract and tort law, not workers’ compensation law. The court held that the words “arising under” in the anti-removal statute must be interpreted in accordance with recent US Supreme Court cases interpreting “arising under” in similar federal jurisdiction statutes.[San Francisco BART v. General Reinsurance Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89403]

The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board lacks jurisdiction over dispute between a self-insured employer and its excess insurer. The claims arose out of an excess insurance policy for workers’ compensation losses issued to the self-insured employer. The WCAB acknowledged the statutory and regulatory distinction between workers’ compensation insurance and excess insurance for self-insured employers. It affirmed the WCAB’s lack of jurisdiction and rejected the insured’s contention that such disputes were subject to mandatory arbitration under Labor Code §5275.[Millman v. Contra Costa County, 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 615 and 79 Cal. Comp. Cases 439; 2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 32]

Appraisal award was binding, and objections to the award were time-barred and lacked merit. Insurer had no obligation to pay portions of award excluded by asbestos exclusion.[Nijjar v. General Star Indem. Co. (C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2014, CV 12-08148 DDP JCGX) 2014 WL 810899]

Obtained appraisal award establishing that actual cash value of 37,000 square foot commercial building was zero dollars due to its poor condition.[9339 Alondra Blvd., LLC v. General Star Indem. Co., Los Angeles Superior Court]

A policy’s no-voluntary-payments provision bars claims by a public adjuster under a professional liability policy. The insurer had no obligation under the policy to indemnify the insured for payments made to settle claims arising out of a former employee’s embezzlement where the payments were made before the insurer was notified of the claims.[Dietz Int’l Pub. Adjusters of Cal., Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co.,796 F. Supp. 2d 1197,2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75080(C.D. Cal.2011), affirmed 2013.]

The owned-property and alienated-property exclusions bar coverage for a multi-million dollar property damage liability claim. Property exclusions j(1) and j(2) in a commercial general liability policy barred claims.[Genesis Ins. Co. v. BRE Props., 916 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D.Cal. 2013)]

The prior-acts date and the interrelated acts provision bar coverage for claims against a property appraiser. The alleged acts, errors and omissions of an insured appraiser took place before the prior acts date in an errors and omissions liability policy. Even if the some of the acts, errors and omissions did not take place before that date, they were interrelated with prior acts, errors and omissions and therefore deemed under the policy to take place before the prior acts date. The policy provided no coverage for a negligent misrepresentation claim.[FDIC v. General Star National Insurance Company, 2012 WL 398352]

Claims arising out of defective products delivered under a sales contract were not covered under a commercial general liability policy or professional liability endorsement.[Spa De Soleil, Inc. v. Gen. Star Indem. Co.,787 F. Supp. 2d 1091,2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60907(C.D. Cal.2011)]

The insolvency exclusion bars coverage for a professional liability claim under a professional liability policy by the accountants for a medical malpractice self-insurance fund against the fund’s actuaries. The exclusion applied to claims that the fund’s insolvency was caused by actuarial reports provided to set reserves and rates. The doctrine of concurrent causation did not apply, and the insurer was entitled to reimbursement of defense expenses paid under a reservation of rights because it never had a duty to defend.[Zurich Global Corporate U.K. v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc.,650 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (C.D. Cal. 2009), affirmed 425 Fed. Appx. 554 (9^th. Cir. 2011.]

A New York insurance broker is not the alter ego of a related New Mexico insurance broker. A judgment creditor of the New Mexico broker sought to collect on the judgment under a professional liability policy issued to the New York broker. After a three-day trial on the alter ego issue, B&T’s client prevailed. Earlier in the case, the court granted partial summary judgment in favor the insurer on the ground that the alter ego doctrine cannot be used to reform an insurance policy to create coverage for the purported alter ego as the insured.Two links: [unpublished statement of decision and declaratory judgment][Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Nance, 506 F. Supp. 2d 700 (2007)]