Issues Handled By Our Insurance Coverage Attorneys
The San Diego based attorneys at Marks, Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP regularly pursue insurance coverage on behalf of policyholders, their insurers, or both. Our insurance coverage attorneys handle areas such areas as:
- Construction Activities
- Bad Faith
- Bodily Injury
- Pollution
- Employment
- Misrepresentation
- Construction Defect
- Delay And Disruption
- Loss Of Use
- General Liability
- Products Liability
- Builder’s Risk/Course Of Construction
- Professional Liability
Experience of our Insurance Coverage Attorneys
The firm has successfully obtained coverage of construction delay and disruption, loss of use, and defense fees to pursue owners for back-charges resulting from allegations of defective work and property damage. The firm’s expertise in the construction field makes it uniquely capable of ascertaining and obtaining insurance benefits for a broad range of claims on public and private works of improvement. Although most coverage matters are resolved amicably, the firm has defended clients through jury trial and then obtained indemnity and reimbursement of defense fees and costs. The firm has also been retained after claim resolution on behalf of insurers and policyholders to obtain reimbursement from insurance companies and additional insurance providers, as well as to pursue bad faith claims against insurers who have breached the obligation to provide insurance coverage.
Representative Insurance Coverage Experience
Roel Construction Company, Inc. v. Alcala Co. et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2007-00052066-CU-CD-CTL
2009: The firm recovered over $1.5 million on behalf of its general contractor client and its insurers against numerous subcontractors and their insurers in a subrogation matter involving a pedestrian bridge collapse. The underlying claim was settled during a pre-litigation ADR process and the firm was nominated lead trial counsel for the client and the developer’s insurance carriers in the subsequent subrogation action against the subcontractors and their insurers. In the subrogation action, one of the insurers for a subcontractor filed a motion for summary judgment regarding its duty to defend the client as an additional insured in the underlying ADR proceeding. It was the insurer’s position that it had no duty to defend the client because no complaint was ever filed in the underlying claim. Prior to the hearing on the motion, the firm reached a settlement with the insurer for $1 million plus an additional $388,000.00 (representing reimbursement of defense fees in the underlying ADR proceeding) contingent on the firm beating the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. The firm prevailed against the motion, resulting in payment of the $388,000.00 to the client and its carriers, including reimbursement of the client’s out of pocket deductible expenses.
Counsel: David W. Smiley
Casoleil LP v. Wermers, Inc. et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC862625
2009: This case involved a multiparty construction defect action with claims by the owner in excess of $34 million. In the action, the firm’s client faced claims in excess of $5 million and insurance coverage was vigorously disputed by the client’s general liability carriers. The firm was able to obtain a favorable settlement within policy limits, including payment of the client’s defense fees and costs by the insurers.
Counsel: P. Randolph Finch, Jr. and David W. Smiley
