Cases
GMSR has an enviable record of success on appeal. For your convenience, the firm has provided a simple search tool for guests and clients to search that record.
Nede Mgmt., Inc. v. Aspen American Ins. Co. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1121
Court of Appeal rejects insureds’ Cumis claims and affirms judgment for insurer
Durment v. Burlington Insurance Company (9th Cir. 2020) 820 Fed.Appx. 561
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court correctly applied California law to reject Plaintiff’s argument that he could recover for settlement amounts from GMSR’s insurer clients without establishing coverage
Picazzo v. C.W. Driver, Inc. (Feb. 28, 2020, B289070) 2020 WL 967087
GMSR obtains $2.8 million appellate victory for workers’ compensation carrier
Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company v. Bennington Group, LLC (Jan. 31, 2020, B285909) 2020 WL 502631
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in favor of insurance carrier, foreclosing $11 million claim
United Farmers Agents Association, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 478
An insurance company can terminate its agents for reasons not specifically listed in the governing agency agreements
Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 102
Court of Appeal affirms trial court’s order voiding jurisdictionally invalid default judgment
Smith v. Farmers Group, Inc. (May 14, 2018, B266242) 2018 WL 2192426
Defendants were not collaterally estopped from asserting plaintiff’s independent-contractor status
Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Great American Ins. Company (March 1, 2017, B264238) 2017 WL 784661
GMSR wins appeal in contract dispute between insurers
Garcia v. Holt (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 600
Court of Appeal holds that GMSR’s landlord clients had no duty to inspect tenants’ unit for dangerous bombmaking activities
21st Century Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 322
Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident. He sued the insured. The carrier, GMSR’s client, defended under a $100,000 limits policy. The plaintiff and the insured claimed that two other policies with $25,000 limits each also provided coverage. The plaintiff refused the carrier’s offer of
© 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.