Core Competencies

Core Coverage & Claims Practice

Sonnenschein is renowned for creativity in meeting its clients’ needs.  This creativity is the genesis of the firm’s Walnut Creek, California facility, which opened in September 2007 and houses our Core Coverage & Claims Practice.  This practice employs a unique staffing and pricing model that gives many of the world’s best-known insurance companies access to unparalleled, yet more affordable, legal counsel to handle their traditional coverage analysis and claim litigation.

Our lawyers in Walnut Creek have decades of experience serving insurance clients in jurisdictions across the United States, and are committed to providing world-class service, creative solutions and top-notch resources to address our clients’ legal needs.  Our team’s experienced partners and associates routinely address everything from cutting-edge coverage issues on matters of first impression to routine questions from claims personnel who need practical answers in real time.  Clients rely on our expertise to evaluate promptly the merits of claims and to identify the best course of action under a broad range of circumstances.  The array of services our Walnut Creek facility provides includes:

• Providing claims-handling advice calculated to deter future litigation
• Drafting coverage analysis and opinion letters
• Defending coverage and “bad faith” litigation
• Defending brokers and agents in E&O litigation
• Prosecuting declaratory judgment actions
• Handling Department of Insurance inquiries
• Reviewing liability claim files to evaluate “policy limit” demands
• Attending mediations in underlying tort cases to argue coverage defenses
• Handling appeals
• Giving presentations to help claims departments stay current on coverage, tort or bad faith issues

Our Core Coverage & Claims Practice attorneys have developed an unmatched record on behalf of our clients in both state and federal courts.  Below is a partial list of reported cases in which the attorneys from this practice have been involved.

• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Great American Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 199 Cal. App. 3d 791 (1988) (applying pre-existing condition exclusion in environmental liability policy)
• Adelman v. Assoc. Intl. Ins. Co., 90 Cal. App. 4th 352 (2001) (rejecting negligence as a basis for third-party liability)
• Aliberti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 74 Cal. App. 4th 138 (1999) (written denial required to halt one-year provision’s equitable tolling)
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chaney, 804 F. Supp. 1219 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (“negligent” failure to repair or maintain property prior to sale is not an “accident,” nor were losses “property damage”)
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hansten, 765 F. Supp. 614 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (California Civil Code section 1668 precludes coverage for misrepresentation, whether intentional or negligent)
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaPore, 762 F. Supp. 268 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (establishing that defamation cannot be an “occurrence”)
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 743 F. Supp. 723 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (California Civil Code section 3343 limits damages arising from alleged failure to disclose defects in condominium development to economic losses)
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 806 F. Supp. 1460 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (misrepresentation is no “accident” and undisclosed defects in real property are not “property damage”)
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Salahutdin, 815 F. Supp. 1309 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (misunderstanding of legal rights does not transform trespass into an “accident”)
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vavasour, 797 F. Supp. 785 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (interpreting term “accident” in context of property dispute)
• American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Bay Area Cab Lease, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 1287 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (applying limitations of site-specific policy)
• Ameron, Intl. v. Ins. Co. of the State of PA, 150 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (2007) (administrative proceedings do not trigger duty to defend construction defect action)
• Cachet Residential Builders, Inc. v. Gemini Ins. Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (D. Ariz. 2007) (defendant not required to consent to removal where not properly served with complaint)
• Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 42 Cal. App. 4th 121 (1996) (establishing effect of “assault and battery” exclusion)
• Collin v. American Empire Ins. Co., 21 Cal. App. 4th 787 (1994) (establishing conversion cannot be an “occurrence”)
• Delgado v. Inter. Exch. of the Auto. Club of So. Cal., 47 Cal. 4th 302 (2009) (self-defense does not render intentional acts “accidental”)
• Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Bank for Cooperatives, 849 F. Supp. 1347 (N.D. Cal. 1994), further proc. at 103 F. 3d 888 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejecting “bad faith” claim by insolvent insured that had no stake in underlying litigation)
• Golden Eagle Ins. Co. v. Travelers Cos., 103 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 1996) (allegations of mere faulty workmanship inadequate to trigger duty to defend)
• Great American Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Ace Oil, Inc., 120 F.R.D. 533 (E.D. Cal. 1988) (forwarding of attorney-client communications to reinsurer did not waive privilege)
• Hamilton v. Maryland Cas. Co., 27 Cal. 4th 718 (2002) (insured that voluntarily settles while being defended cannot recoup settlement from insurer)
• Homestead Ins. Co. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 44 Cal. App. 4th 1297 (1996) (“interrelated act” clause does not trump requirement of claim within policy period)
• Icasiano v. Allstate Ins. Co., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (insurance agent is fraudulent defendant whose joinder cannot defeat removal)
• Lindsey v. Admiral Ins. Co., 804 F. Supp. 47 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (accusation of disparaging statements insufficient to trigger personal injury coverage)
• Marselis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 121 Cal. App. 4th 122 (2004) (tolling of one-year statute unwarranted where claim was paid, not denied)
• Mez Industries, Inc. v. Pacific Nat’l Ins. Co., 76 Cal. App. 4th 856 (1999) (inducement of patent infringement held legally uninsurable)
• Moncada v. Allstate Ins. Co., 471 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (property insurer not liable for defective workmanship by recommended repair contractor)
• Rohr Industries, Inc. v. First State Ins. Co., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1480 (1997) (good faith settlement procedures do not bar contribution claims between co-insurers)
• Sapiro v. Encompass Ins., 221 F.R.D. 513 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“manifestation” rule precluded coverage for 20-year progressive loss)
• Samson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 949 F. Supp. 748 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (no duty to defend or settle a non-litigated claim)
• Swain v. California Cas. Ins. Co., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2002) (eviction of tenants not an “occurrence”)
• True v. Shank, 81 Cal. App. 4th 1250 (2000) (expert witness deposition notice proper where fees tendered at time of deposition, rather than with notice)

Our Core Coverage & Claims Practice is uniquely positioned at Sonnenschein, focusing on coverage analysis and claim litigation while harnessing the knowledge and expertise of the firm’s many other world-class practices as situations demand.  Our expertise, combined with our full range of capabilities, makes Sonnenschein the “go-to” firm for some of the most prominent insurance companies.