GMSR has extensive experience in addressing the propriety of punitive damages awards, both in seeking preserve awards when they are adequately supported and in getting excessive awards reduced or eliminated.
CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 1255
A truck driver allegedly caused an accident. Unbeknownst to his employer, he had a significant pre-employment history of alcohol and drug abuse and vehicle accidents. This was not discovered by a third-party which handled pre-employment screenings. The driver also had some minor accidents and speeding
Court of Appeal strikes punitive damage claim against employer of truck driver.
CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four [published] Plaintiff sued the employer of a truck driver for negligent hiring/retention and sought punitive damages. The trial court refused to strike the punitive damages allegations, but the Court of Appeal granted
Court of Appeal reverses quiet title summary judgment against GMSR’s client
Perez v. Wiesand (2015) 2015 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 3361 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. GMSR’s client was a defendant in a quiet title action between family members over ownership of two rental properties. A grandson successfully moved for summary judgment,
Wilson v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123
Court of Appeal reverses $4 million emotional distress judgment
O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335
Leading the briefing and oral argument in a case watched nationwide, Laurie won a ruling foreclosing strict liability and negligence liability (in most circumstances) for a manufacturer that did not make or sell an injury-causing product foreseeably used with its own.
Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. W.W.I. Properties, 2007 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5649
Real estate dispute; reversal of punitive damage award in corporate derivative suit; only injured party can recover punitive damages; ratio of punitive to compensatory damages
Perez v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 2005 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 11757
Reduction of $25 million punitive damage award to $711,000 in insurance bad faith judgment in farm tractor accident
396 Investments, Inc. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 2005 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 4876
Reduction of $25 million punitive damage award to $1 million
Alexander v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2004 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5685
Independent contractor claims for fraudulent inducement of employment barred by statute of limitations and parol evidence rule
Hanstad v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 2002 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8605
$40 million punitive damages award reversed because trial court improperly usurped jury’s role in determining facts regarding managing agent’s ratification of tortious conduct
Browse By Practice Area
Who We Serve
Whether on appeal, assisting trial counsel, or advising government officials contemplating legislative action, GMSR provides unique insight into the complex laws that impact public entities.
Where coverage may exist, GMSR represents insureds on appeal effectively and efficiently. Where it does not, the firm protects insurers’ right to deny claims.
GMSR offers corporate clients objective assessments on appeal, based on a deep understanding of the limitations and opportunities of appellate review.
The firm’s lawyers are team players, collaborating with trial counsel at any level from legal strategy to writing or editing trial court motions and appellate briefs.
GMSR vigorously advocates the rights of individual plaintiffs and defendants, in both state and federal appellate courts.
© 2018 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
p: (415) 315 1774
We welcome your inquiry. However, sending us an email does not create an attorney-client relationship. For that reason, you should not send us any kind of confidential information. Until we have agreed to represent you, we cannot be obligated to keep it confidential.