Excess Verdict Cases Lawyer

Excess Verdict Cases Attorney Serving Clients In California and Nationwide

California Trial Lawyers Holding Insurers Liable For Excess Verdicts

All too often, insurance companies and the defense attorneys they hire on your behalf try to save the insurer money by failing to accept and pay a reasonable settlement offered by the injured party, putting the policyholder at risk.

By refusing to accept a reasonable settlement and taking a case to trial, insurance companies are gambling with your potential liability above and beyond your policy limits. If the jury decides against the defendant, however, the insurance company may claim it is only liable for paying up to the limits of the policy, leaving the policyholder on the hook for the rest.

When an insurance company refuses to reasonably settle a lawsuit within its own policy limits, and the lawsuit results in a verdict in excess of the policy limits, the insurance company can be sued for insurance bad faith and may be liable for the entire amount of the judgment.

The Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Obligates Insurers to Accept Reasonable Settlement Demands Within Policy Limits

California law has required insurers to accept reasonable settlement demands that are within policy limits as part of its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Failure to do so is bad faith. (Communale v. Traders and Gen. Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654, 659; Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425, 429.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 400-401:

The insurer must settle within policy limits when there is a substantial likelihood of a recovery in excess of those limits . . . [T]he duty to settle is implied in law to protect the insured from exposure to liability in excess of coverage as a result of the insurer’s gamble — on which only the insured might lose.

Insurers, therefore, have a “legal duty to make an independent determination of the possible benefits of settlement and the hazards of failure to settle.” (Garner v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 843, 849; Merritt v. Reserve Ins. Co. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 858, 882.) An insurer’s duty to protect its insured from excess liability thus includes the duty to provide its own expertise in evaluating third party claims.

How Pillsbury & Coleman Helps Policyholders

The experienced attorneys at Pillsbury & Coleman ensure that insurance companies abide by the obligations imposed upon them under California law in three important ways:

• Consultation. Pillsbury & Coleman provides consultation to plaintiffs’ counsel and insured-defendants alike in evaluating policy limits demands and the insurer’s obligations. Whether initially contacted by plaintiffs’ counsel, a defendant’s in-house counsel, or the defendant itself, we provide expert advice as to the scope of available coverage, analysis as to whether limits demands were properly made, and analysis as to whether the circumstances triggered the insurer’s duty to settle.
• Advocacy. Whether corresponding directly with the insurer, or participating in formal mediation or settlement conference sessions during underlying litigation, Pillsbury & Coleman is more than just coverage counsel — we serve as your strategic partner to make sure that the insurance company knows of, and abides by, its obligations under California law.
• Litigation. Sometimes, litigation is necessary to hold insurance companies accountable. The attorneys at Pillsbury & Coleman are experienced trial lawyers with decades of success against every major insurance company in the country, including Travelers, Nationwide, USAA, Chubb, Lloyd’s of London, and others.

Pillsbury & Coleman’s Record of Success

The attorneys at Pillsbury & Coleman are experienced trial lawyers with decades of success against every major insurance company in the country, including Travelers, Nationwide, USAA, Chubb, Lloyd’s of London, and others. Here are some examples:

• Cerrato v. Yong’s Logistic’s Inc., et al., Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. HG20056366. After judgment was entered against defendants for nearly $25 million, and their insurer, National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, advised them that it would only pay its $1 million policy limit and that any excess amount was their responsibility. National Fire & Marine, however, repeatedly refused policy limit demands sent by the plaintiff’s counsel over a period of two years. When National Fire & Marine refused our demands to protect its insureds from the staggering excess verdict, Pillsbury & Coleman successfully filed suit against the insurer as well as the defense counsel it had retained to represent the defendants. (Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 25 CV137779.) While National Fire & Marine is appealing the underlying judgment, it has now acknowledged that it will cover any resulting judgment, even if in excess of the $1 million policy limit.
• Henry v. State Farm, et al., Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG15797292. Our client suffered a $13 million personal injury trial verdict, well in excess of the $3,250,000 limits of his State Farm policy. State Farm had repeatedly rejected policy limits demands and advised our client that he would nonetheless be on the hook for the excess. We filed suit against State Farm and its retained defense counsel, and State Farm settled with the underlying plaintiff and settled with our client for a confidential amount.
• Paramount Scaffold v. Gerling America, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC217534. Our client, a Southern California scaffolding company, suffered a $3 million judgment in a personal injury action. Its insurer, Gerling America, paid its $1 million limit and sought to stick its insured with the remaining $2 million liability. We filed suit against Gerling America for bad faith and against the defense firm it retained to represent our client for breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice. They had repeatedly rejected policy limits demands, gambled with our client’s liability, and lost. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that not only did we present sufficient evidence to support bad faith, we also had sufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages against Gerling America. We resolved the case on a confidential basis shortly before trial.

Contact Our California Insurance Law Firm Today

To discuss your insurance-related concern, please call our San Francisco office at (866) 753-1435 or send us an email today. Our lawyers represent clients throughout the state in cases involving excess verdicts.