21st Century Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 322 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) [published]. 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
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (Bautista) (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1199 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [published]. Despite tragic facts, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate, holding that GMSR’s insurance-carrier client owed no coverage under a homeowners insurance
Adamo v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1286 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One) [published]. When San Diego wildfires damaged landscaping on a homeowner’s property and several detached outbuildings, GMSR’s insurance-carrier client reimbursed the homeowner’s losses in excess of $100,000, exhausting
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (Golden State Developers, Inc.) (2013) 2013 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5487 (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One) [unpublished]. In an insurance coverage dispute, the trial court, purporting to apply the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, ordered
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 (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. 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 LEXIS 8636 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished].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 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 LEXIS 1363 (California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three) [unpublished].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. (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 Insurance Exchange et al. v. St. Fleur (2011) 2011 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 9331 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two) [unpublished]. The Court of Appeal affirmed with directions a preliminary injunction in favor of GMSR’s client Farmers against its former insurance sales
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.
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.