Court of Appeal affirms that a homeowner’s non-specific request to an insurance agent to cover “everything in the house” creates no duty requiring the agent to advise the insured about the inadequacy of their jewelry coverage
A homeowner sought insurance coverage for his $9.5 million home in Los Angeles. He advised an insurance agent for Fire Insurance Exchange that he wanted a policy that covered “everything in the house, fully and completely.” The agent said “okay.” Fire issued a homeowner’s policy
Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment, holding that insurance policy does not cover infringement of models’ rights of publicity
GMSR’s insurer client issued a commercial general liability (CGL) policy to a nightclub. Club employees obtained various models’ photographs and used them in social media posts promoting the club. The models’ rights-management company sued the club, alleging that it had used the photographs without permission
GMSR defeats entertainment company’s novel appeal for pandemic coverage
Endeavor Operating Co., a media and entertainment producer, sued its commercial property insurer for coverage of losses it experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Endeavor argued that governmental restrictions on its ability to use venues, and property damage supposedly caused at unnamed venues by the virus
Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of hotel’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses
HT-Seattle, operator of a large Seattle-area hotel and conference center, suffered business losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. HT-Seattle sued its property insurer (GMSR’s client) to cover these losses, claiming that the presence of COVID-19 virus at the hotel constituted “direct physical loss or damage” to
Court of Appeal affirms dismissal of movie theater’s property insurance claim for pandemic-related business losses
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Starlight Cinemas suffered business losses as a result of government closure orders and reduced ticket and concession sales. Starlight sued its property insurer (GMSR’s client) to cover these losses, claiming the closures and reduced attendance constituted “direct physical loss” to its
GMSR notches another appellate win in high-stakes COVID insurance litigation
Plaintiff In-N-Out Burgers sought coverage from its property insurer for losses it argued were sustained as a result of the COVID-19 virus. Like dozens of other unsuccessful COVID-19-era lawsuits against insurance carriers, it argued there was “direct physical loss of or damage” to its property
GMSR gets summary judgment reversed for bank seeking insurance coverage of forgery loss
GMSR’s client, a bank, issued a sizable loan, relying for collateral on the borrower’s trust account at another bank. To secure the loan, the borrower provided an Account Control Agreement that gave GMSR’s client control over the other bank account in case of default. The
The Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of Covid-related insurance coverage suit against GMSR’s client based on policy’s exclusions
A California-based healthcare facility operator sued its insurance carrier after the carrier denied coverage for the facility’s alleged Covid-19-related losses. Like dozens of other unsuccessful Covid-19-era lawsuits against insurance carriers, it alleged “direct physical loss of or damage” to its property from the presence of
Court of Appeal Affirms Judgment For GMSR Client, Making New Law On The Interplay Of Two Statutes
Following a fender-bender, plaintiff was treated for minor injuries covered by workers’ compensation insurance. Plaintiff nevertheless sued the other driver’s employer (GMSR’s client) for millions of dollars, and rejected a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 settlement offer. The jury awarded plaintiff less than the
Ninth Circuit Affirms Judgment, Rejecting Plaintiffs’ Belated Effort To Change Insurance Bad Faith Theories
Plaintiffs injured in a car accident obtained an assignment of the at-fault driver’s rights and sued the driver’s insurance carrier for bad faith. They alleged that they had sent the carrier a settlement demand letter, but the carrier failed to timely accept. The carrier moved
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.