GMSR has a long history of representing insurance carriers on a wide range of issues, including first- and third-party coverage, excess insurance, contribution and allocation claims, as well as bad faith liability issues, such as Brandt fee questions and punitive damages. GMSR’s appellate lawyers regularly use this experience to assist clients in all facets of the appellate process. The firm also counsels both carriers and policyholders regarding their potential liabilities and rights.
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment for GMSR’s client, rejecting insurance coverage of slow, continuous water leak
Brown et al. v. Mid-Century Insurance Company (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 841 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [published]. A water pipe corroded over several decades until water began to leak from two small holes and collect underneath the insureds’ house. The leak
Cardio Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 69
Affirming judgment for GMSR’s client, Court of Appeal holds that insurance policy exclusion for damage caused by water that “backs up or overflows” unambiguously applies to damage caused by toilet overflow due to blocked drain or sewer
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in favor of GMSR’s carrier client in first-party coverage dispute
Cardio Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 69 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [published]. When a sewer backed up in the building where plaintiff had its office, water overflowed a toilet in an upper-floor office
Guerrette v. Farmers Group, Inc. (Nov. 28, 2012, B237819) 2012 WL 5936702 [nonpublished opinion]
Plaintiff lost his house and much of his personal property in a fire. His insurance carrier, GMSR’s client, stopped paying his claim upon discovering that plaintiff had made four material misrepresentations in the submission of his claim. At the trial of his suit for breach
Court of Appeal affirms judgment in favor of GMSR’s carrier client in a coverage dispute, allowing proof at trial of insured’s additional misrepresentations
Guerrette v. Farmers Group, Inc. et al. (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 8636 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. Plaintiff lost his house and much of his personal property in a fire. His insurance carrier, GMSR’s client, stopped paying his claim
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Song (Feb. 23, 2012, A131132) 2012 WL 593164 [nonpublished opinion]
The Court of Appeal affirmed a preliminary injunction in favor of GMSR’s insurer client against its former sales agent. The agent’s agreement with the insurer provided that “all manuals, lists and records of any kind (including information pertaining to policyholders and expirations)” were the principal’s
Court of Appeal affirms preliminary injunction requiring former independent contractor insurance agent to return confidential information to GMSR’s client
Farmers Insurance Exchange et al. v. Song (2012) 2012 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1363 (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed a preliminary injunction in favor of GMSR’s insurer client against its former sales agent. The agent’s agreement
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. (Dec. 16, 2011, No. B221489) 2011 WL 6276097 [nonpublished opinion]
The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for GMSR’s client, St. Paul Mercury Insurance. Chicago Title’s officers and employees were implicated in a mortgage/real estate fraud scheme that resulted in nearly $100 million in settlements and judgments. Chicago Title tendered its defense to its general
Court of Appeal holds title insurance escrows fall within insurance-related work exclusion, affirming summary judgment for GMSR’s client
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9627 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for GMSR’s client, St. Paul Mercury Insurance. Chicago Title’s officers and employees were
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. St. Fleur (Dec. 6, 2011, B229509) 2011 WL 6040076 [nonpublished opinion]
The Court of Appeal affirmed with directions a preliminary injunction in favor of GMSR’s client Farmers against its former insurance sales agent, Kettelie St. Fleur. After Farmers terminated St. Fleur, her counsel threatened to help her switch 1200 policyholders to other carriers in a manner
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.
As part of GMSR’s long-standing commitment to social justice and equality, GMSR provides pro bono appellate services to individuals and to community organizations on issues of concern.
© 2024 Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP.
All rights reserved. Disclaimer - Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Los Angeles
6420 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90048
p: (310) 859 7811 | f: (310) 276 5261
San Francisco
50 California Street, Suite 1500
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.