Examples Of Our Success in Court
Asten Johnson v. Columbia Casualty, et al. (2007)
Kaufman & Logan won a three week bench trial in federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for American Insurance Company, which resulted in a holding that an "asbestosis" exclusion barred all asbestos related bodily injury claims. The court also found American's excess policies contained no defense obligation and its 18 month policies had one annual aggregate limit. American's potential exposure was in excess of $50 million. In a pretrial ruling the court held that regulatory approval of exclusions was not required to make them enforceable. That ruling protected another $90 million of American limits plus defense costs in policies which had other asbestos exclusions.American Auto Co. v. CBL Insurance Services, Inc. (2007)
Kaufman & Logan obtained a dispositive ruling that American Automobile Insurance Company's errors and omissions policies issued to CBL Insurance Services, a life insurance agency, did not provide coverage for losses arising out of CBL's premium financing scheme, saving American Auto over $5 million.American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2007)
On behalf of Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Kaufman & Logan obtained summary judgment finding there was no coverage under the policy because there was no advertising injury, or potential advertising injury, during the policy period.Chicago Ins. Co. v. Barak (2007)
On behalf of Chicago Insurance Company, Kaufman & Logan filed a successful motion for summary adjudication on the duty to indemnify under an attorney's errors and omissions policy. The Court found Chicago had no duty to indemnify the attorney/insured for over $1 million awarded against the insured in an underlying arbitration of a fee dispute and malpractice claims.Chicago Ins. Company v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (2004 & 2006)
In two separate actions on behalf of Chicago Insurance Company, Kaufman & Logan obtained summary judgments establishing the policies contained a policy aggregate limit which was applicable to clergy abuse claims and had been exhausted by prior payments.Bank of American v. Zurich Ins. Co. (2005)
Kaufman & Logan obtained summary judgment for Bank of America on its bad faith claim against an insurer for refusing to defend and indemnify under an additional insured endorsement.Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (2003)
Kaufman & Logan won an arbitration proceeding under the Wellington Agreement in which the insured sought $200 million in additional coverage for its underlying asbestos bodily injury claims. The arbitration decision found Fireman's Fund Insurance Company had no obligation to provide coverage not subject to the products/completed operations aggregate limits. Judgment was entered by the Los Angeles Superior Court.City of Modesto, et al. v. Dow Chemical Co., et al. (2002)
Kaufman & Logan obtained summary judgment for Fuller Supply Company in an environmental contamination action brought by the City of Modesto. Subsequent trial in the action led to a substantial verdict against other defendants.Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1996 & 1998)
Kaufman & Logan represented Fireman's Fund Insurance Company in this complex proceeding, in which Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Company sought over $100 million for coverage of underlying asbestos claims and bad faith damages allegedly due to Fireman's Fund's failure to admit the existence of lost policies.
The first phase was a three week bench trial resulting in a holding that there is no duty to defend after exhaustion of aggregate limits under general liability policies issued prior to 1966. The second phase included coverage for underlying asbestos bodily injury claims and bad faith issues related to lost policies. A very favorable settlement was reached during the sixth week of a ten week jury trial, after Kaiser Aluminum was ordered to produce previously withheld documents concerning its policy search, and Fireman's Fund had filed a motion to amend its cross-complaint to assert a fraud claim against Kaiser Aluminum and its attorneys.