Firm News

The Firm recently represented American Airborne, E.M.S., in a case arising out of the crash of a helicopter that was transporting a patient via air ambulance.  The crash resulted in four fatalities, including a paramedic.  We successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that workers compensation was the heirs’ exclusive remedy.  The Fifth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal affirmed, accepting our argument that the paramedic was American Airborne’s “special employee.”  (See Juarez v. Rogers Helicopters, Inc., 2019 WL 2240694 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).)

 

* * *

 

The Firm recently represented Old Republic Insurance Company in an action for breach of contract and bad faith brought by the insured under an aircraft policy covering a Gulfstream jet aircraft.  We successfully moved for summary judgment and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California held, in a published decision, that no coverage was afforded for three separate reasons that we had argued, i.e., there was a misrepresentation as to where the aircraft would be based, there was a breach of the “Your Aircraft” warranty provision and there was a breach of the “Purpose of Flight” clause in the policy.  In arriving at its decision, the court made a number of strong statements in favor of an insurer’s right to avoid coverage based upon misrepresentation, including “California law imposes ‘heavy burdens of disclosure’ ” upon an insured, “[a]n insurer has the right to rely on the insured’s answers to questions ‘without verifying their accuracy,’ ” and “[a]lthough material misrepresentation or concealment entitles the insurer to rescind, rescission is not an exclusive remedy, [r]ather, ‘[a] misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact in an insurance application also establishes a complete defense in an action on the policy.’ ”  (See R Consulting & Sales, Inc. v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1019 (S.D. Cal. 2018).)

 

* * *

 

The Firm recently represented AIG Aerospace in a coverage action arising out of corrosion to a business jet aircraft.  The claimant sought to obtain liability coverage under an aircraft policy following a judgment entered against the insured and an assignment of rights from the insured to the claimant.  The underlying judgment was for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation.  Both the claimant and the insurer moved for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied the claimant’s motion and granted the insurer’s, accepting all three arguments submitted on behalf of the insurer: lack of “property damage,” lack of an “occurrence” and lack of a triggering event “during the policy period.”  While acknowledging that corrosion constituted tangible damage, the court held that the two causes of action forming the underlying judgment did not assert that the insured’s actions were the cause of that damage.  (See 757BD LLC v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 330 F. Supp. 3d 1143 (D. Ariz. 2018) [NOT BOLD]  .)  We successfully opposed an appeal by the claimant to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  (See 757BD, LLC V. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 804 F. App’x 592 (9th Cir. 2020).)  We also obtained an award of attorney’s fees against the claimant