Randall Chapman v. UnumProvident Corporation

Case Info.

Marin County Superior Court

Client

Dr. Randall Chapman

Attorneys

Arnold R. Levinson and Terrence J. Coleman

Result

Won at trial; $31,700,000 verdict

Summary

Pillsbury & Levinson obtained the largest jury verdict in the history of Marin County by a factor of over three times. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Pillsbury and Levinson's client, Dr. Randall Chapman, and against UnumProvident Corporation in the amount of $31,700,000. It was the second largest verdict in the nation in a UnumProvident lawsuit. Read More >>

Result

Won at trial; $31,700,000 verdict

Vann v. Travelers Ins. Co.

Case Info.

Alameda County Superior Court

Case Issue

Refusal to defend insured

Client

Successful National Company with over 2000 employees headquartered in Bay Area

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr.

Result

Won at trial $25 million in punitive damages; upheld on appeal

Summary

A jury in Alameda County, California, issued an award in favor of Mr. Pillsbury's client, Gordon Vann, and against The Travelers Insurance Company of $1,500,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages. The verdict totaled $26.5 million. This verdict was upheld completely on appeal and the Travelers Insurance Company was forced to pay Mr. Vann over $30 million with accrued interest by the time all appeals had been exhausted...Read More>>

Zembsch v. Health Net of California, Inc.

Case Info.

Alameda Superior Court

Client

Zembsch family

Attorneys

Arnold R. Levinson, Terrence J. Coleman and Rebecca Grey

Summary

Jack Zembsch, four years old at the time this case was filed, was diagnosed with a rare form of dwarfism and required a series of specialized surgeries.  There is only one surgeon in the United States that could perform the surgery (Dr. McKenzie) but when the Zembschs submitted a claim to their insurance company to cover the surgery -- it was denied.  Pillsbury & Levinson filed suit in Alameda Superior Court alleging that Health Net of California, Inc. was, in effect, denying our client a potentially life-saving treatment.  The case ended short of trial.

As of March, 2010 Jack Zembsch has undergone three surgeries by Dr. McKenzie and is making miraculous progress.

Plaintiff. v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

United States District Court, Northern District of California

Client

Individual

Attorneys

Terrence J. Coleman and Rebecca Grey

Result

Settlement in favor of plaintiff

Summary

Obtained seven-figure settlement in an ERISA case on behalf of an obstetrician/gynecologist who was disabled by a severe orthopedic condition that precluded the performance of many of his most important and most lucrative occupational duties, including the delivery of babies and obstetrical surgery. As a result, he suffered a precipitous drop in income, but continued to work. The insurer argued that because he could still perform many of his former duties, he was not disabled under the policy. P&L obtained a favorable ruling on Motion for Judgment rejecting the insurer's claims, and the case settled shortly thereafter.

Plaintiff v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Client

Individual

Attorneys

Arnold R. Levinson and Rebecca Grey

Result

Settlement in favor of plaintiff

Summary

Obtained a multi-million dollar settlement on behalf of a surgeon disabled by severe post-traumatic stress disorder after being shot in a murder attempt. After healing from his gunshot wounds, our client continued to suffer from severe depression, attempted suicide multiple times and abused drugs and alcohol before successfully entering rehabilitation. He ultimately lost his medical license. While engaging in aggressive character assassination regarding the difficulties in our client's life, his disability insurer contended that our client was not totally disabled from being a surgeon because psychological testing indicating he was highly intelligent and had no demonstrable memory deficits. After defeating the insurer's attempt to dismiss the case and the claim for punitive damages in Summary Judgment, the case settled.

Plaintiff v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Client

Individual

Attorneys

Arnold R. Levinson and Rebecca Grey

Result

Settlement in favor of plaintiff

Summary

Obtained multi-million dollar settlement on behalf of a widow with no income whose husband of 30 years died suddenly while overseas. Our client's husband had obtained a life insurance policy from his insurer through an insurance broker who was also a family friend and who knew of his intent to travel overseas. The insurance broker erroneously completed the application for insurance, failing to disclose that the insured intended to travel. After completing a biased investigation to unearth any way to avoid paying her claim, the insurer denied the claim on the ground that the deceased had made misrepresentations on the application regarding intended travel, despite being fully aware that the application was completed by the broker. The case settled after P&L filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that the insurer had committed bad faith as a matter of law.

Plaintiff v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

Marin County Superior Court

Client

Individual

Attorneys

Arnold R. Levinson and Rebecca Grey

Result

Settlement in favor of plaintiff

Summary

Obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of a construction subcontractor who, along with the general contractor, was sued for negligence by a homeowner after a fire at the home where the subcontractor had been working. Despite the fact that the general contractor's insurer was obligated to fund a legal defense for the employees of the general contractor, including our client, it refused to defend our client, who was threatened with financial ruin. He tried to fund his own defense but quickly ran out of money. To make matters worse, the insurer continued to thwart his efforts to settle with the homeowner so that the general contractor it was defending could pin the fire on him. Our client hired the firm after losing his money, his health insurance for his family and his marriage and the matter was settled shortly after a bad faith lawsuit was filed.

Plaintiff v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

Marin County Superior Court

Client

Individual

Attorneys

Arnold R. Levinson and Rebecca Grey

Result

Settlement

Summary

Obtained a favorable seven-figure settlement on behalf a victim of a fire, which burned down her small ski cabin. After making a claim for the damage under her homeowner's policy, her insurer performed a biased and highly intrusive investigation and, using patently incompetent junk science, accused her of burning down her own property to fraudulently collect on her insurance policy. P&L hired experts who quickly determined the fire was obviously electrical, and accidental, and debunked the insurance company's theories through evidence and depositions. The matter settled two months before trial.

Manufacturing Company. v. Federal Insurance Company

Case Info.

United States District Court, Northern District of California

Case Issue

Insurance company refused to defend its insured; breach of contract action filed and won

Client

Manufacturing Company

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr. and Eric Larson

Result

Won on Summary Judgment

Summary

Represented manufacturing company denied a defense under a fiduciary liability policy against a claim by former executives for lifetime health care benefits. The company had been forced to defend itself at its own cost in arbitration proceedings. We sued the insurer for breach of the policy and for bad faith and prevailed on summary judgment, establishing the duty to defend and the insurer's liability for defense costs. The case then settled for the entire sum of the arbitration defense costs plus interest, as well as a portion of the fees incurred in bringing the coverage action.

Hotel Owner v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Case Issue

Property damage to hotel; recovering business interruption and repair costs from several different insurers

Client

Hotel Owner

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr. and Eric Larson

Result

Collected close to $11 million from various insurers

Summary

Represented hotel owner on claims under property policies for severe water damage to hotel resulting from construction defects. Working closely with the hotel's attorney representing it in the construction defect lawsuit, we recovered millions of dollars for property damage and business income loss from property insurers through long-term and intensive negotiations. This case also involved negotiations with the insurers' subrogation counsel and several cutting-edge issues in the law of subrogation.

Technology Company v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Case Issue

Technology Errors and Omissions Claim

Client

Technology Company

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr. and Vedica Puri

Result

Won Phase I of trial (obtaining ruling of first impression in California) and multi-million dollar settlement before Phase II of trial.

Summary

Successfully negotiated a multi-million dollar settlement of a technology errors and omissions claim against national insurance company. Our client designed and manufactured of a hardware system used to train pilots. Our client was sued for failing to meet the specifications of a sales agreement and waived millions of dollars of invoices in exchange for a dismissal. The client tendered the waiver of invoices for reimbursement to its insurer. The insurer responded that a waiver was not equal to damages under the policy and it would not reimburse our client. There were no cases in California on this point at the time. We obtained a ruling of "first impression" in California that a waiver of invoices can be damages where the term is undefined by the policy.

California Law Firm v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Case Issue

Insurer refused to defend insured law firm against malpractice suit and rescinded law firm's policy; our client sued for breach of duty to defend and bad faith

Client

California law firm

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr. and Vedica Puri

Result

Insurer reinstated policy and made partial payment towards settlement of malpractice suit.

Summary

Insurance company rescinded client's professional errors and omissions policy stating that the client had made a material misrepresentation on its policy application about a potential claim. Our client was a small law firm in Southern California that was hit with a malpractice lawsuit. After the firm tendered the claim, the insurance company rescinded its policy, refused to defend the claim and sued the firm for declaratory relief. We resolved the malpractice suit by convincing the insurance company to pay towards a settlement and persuaded the insurance company to withdraw its rescission of the policy.

Homeowners v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Case Issue

Massive water leak damaged high-end home; insurance company offered a fraction of repair cost to settle the claim; client sued for breach of contract and bad faith

Client

Homeowners

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr. and Vedica Puri

Result

Appraisal Award of $3,152,000 and further settlement

Summary

Clients' high-end home damaged by a water leak and they tendered the claim under their homeowner's policy. Insurance company's failure to respond for several months allowed mold to develop and forced the clients to move out of their home. The client obtained and submitted bids for repairs for $4.0M and above, each one of which was rejected by the insurer. We argued that the insurance company committed bad faith by rejecting our clients' bids and low-balling the repair estimate. After an appraisal panel awarded $3.152M, the case settled for a confidential amount.

The Regents of the University of California v. Stop Loss Insurance Brokers

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Case Issue

Broker negligence

Client

The Regents of the University of California

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr. and Vedica Puri

Result

Won at trial

Summary

The Regents sued their broker ("Stop Loss") for professional negligence in failing to obtain the proper kind of insurance.

The Regents argued that Stop Loss pitched itself as an expert full service broker that would not only place the Regents with a reinsurer but also obtain claim information, prepare claim forms and request reimbursements directly from the reinsurer. However, in a particularly severe health care claim, that of patient Doe, the Regents claimed that Stop Loss failed to live up to its agreement. Doe suffered acute renal failure and incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in health care costs. The Regents filed a claim for reinsurance of this amount and was shocked to learn that the claim was denied. The reinsurer denied the claim on the grounds that it had not been disclosed during the application process.

The Regents contended that Stop Loss breached its contract and committed professional negligence by agreeing to but then failing to properly transmit the claim of patient Doe to the Regents' re-insurer in a timely fashion. Second, the Regents contended that Stop Loss failed to procure the proper amount of reinsurance. At trial, the Regents contended it was entitled to reimbursement of the amounts it paid on the Doe claim.

After a two week trial in San Francisco Superior Court, the jury found that Stop Loss had breached its contract and fallen below the standard of care and awarded the Regents over hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The Regents also recovered 100% of its case costs from Stop Loss.

Bay Area Clients v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

Marin County Superior Court

Case Issue

Insurance company refused to pay for full remediation of our client's landslide onto neighboring property

Client

Homeowners

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr.

Result

100% payment of the claim and 100% reimbursement of our client's attorneys fees to pursue insurance company

Summary

We represented homeowners who suffered severe property damage due to a landslide. Insurance company refused to pay for complete remediation of the hillside. We sued for breach of the policy and bad faith. After defeating the insurer's effort to dismiss the lawsuit, we settled for payment of 100% of claim, including the bad faith claim, obtaining reimbursement of the full cost to repair the hillside as well as the attorneys' fees paid by our client.

National Company v. Insurance Company (headquartered in the East Coast)

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Case Issue

Insurance company refused to reimburse client for payment of asbestos claims by seaman's family; client sued insurer for breach of contract

Client

National Company

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr., Vedica Puri and Richard Shively

Result

Multi-million dollar settlement of claim and portion of attorney's fees

Summary

Recovered full value of settlement paid by large company to resolve maritime asbestos claim after successfully defeating insurer's summary judgment. Also recovered majority of attorney's fees paid by our client to obtain recovery from insurer.

Matson Navigation Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Case Issue

Insurance company refused to reimburse client "all sums" paid to resolve an asbestos personal injury claim.

Client

Matson Navigation Company

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr. and Richard Shively

Result

Won ruling allowing insured to pursue insurance company of its choice Arbitration set for January 2010

Summary

This was an important victory for a leading maritime shipping company that had incurred substantial losses from asbestos personal injury claims by one of its merchant seamen. Under California law, it has been clear for some time that an insurer who issued a comprehensive general liability ("CGL") policy is required to reimburse its insured for "all sums" -- i.e., the entire loss -- when a covered loss results from a continuous or progressive injury that triggers coverage under a number of consecutive annual CGL policies. The insured is entitled to select the policies in effect in any single triggered policy period of its choosing to cover the entire loss (up to policy limits), and the selected insurer then can seek to recoup part of its payment by pursuing equitable contribution from the insurers that issued the other triggered policies...Read More >>

Maritime Company v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

San Francisco Superior Court

Case Issue

Insurance company refused to reimburse client for payment of asbestos claims by seaman's family; client sued insurer for breach of contract

Client

Maritime Corporation

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr. and Richard Shively

Result

100% recovery from insurance company of all sums paid by client

Summary

The firm recovered the entire amount (multi millions) paid by a leading maritime transportation company to settle asbestos injury/death claims brought by the heirs of two former tugboat captains. Pillsbury & Levinson overcame the argument made by the targeted insurer -- which had issued "Protection & Indemnity" maritime liability insurance policies that covered only three of the 30 years during which the captains were allegedly exposed to asbestos aboard the company's tug boats -- that it was only responsible for an allocable portion (10%) of the loss, and that the remaining 90% of the loss would have to be recovered from the insurers on the risk during the other 27 years of the Captains' employment. No such recovery would have been possible, since many of the other insurers were insolvent or had long since gone out of business.

Successful National Company headquartered in Bay Area v. Insurance Company

Case Info.

United States District Court, Northern District

Case Issue

Property damage claim denied by insurance company

Client

Successful National Company with over 2000 employees headquartered in Bay Area

Attorneys

Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr., Vedica Puri and Eric Larson

Result

Seven-figure settlement of claim

Summary

Hurricane decimated client's office operations in Florida; insurance company investigated the claim for over a year and then refused to pay for hurricane damage on the grounds that the client had not disclosed the address of that office location. Client sued for breach of contract and bad faith handling of the claim. After depositions of key claims examiners, the case settled while cross motions for summary judgment were pending. The client was able to rebuild its damaged facilities.