Partnership Placements, Inc., et al. v. Landmark Insurance Co.
Published: Jun. 21, 1997 | Result Date: Feb. 7, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC144143 – $12,753,300
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Philip E. Cook
(The Cook Law Firm PC)
Defendant
Douglas G. MacKay
(Vitale & Lowe)
Experts
Plaintiff
Thomas L. Carter
(technical)
Facts
Defendant Landmark Insurance Company sold a comprehensive general liability policy effective Jan. 1, 1986 to Jan. 1, 1987 (the "CGL policy") to National Investment Development Corporation. In November 1987, the plaintiffs' affiliates purchased National Investment Development Corporation and its properties, which included the Tyler House apartments in Washington, D.C. The CGL policy provided coverage for a number of low and moderate-income properties throughout the United States. On Mar. 7, 1987, certain tenants of the Tyler House apartments filed a lawsuit against a number of Landmark's policyholders (the "Tyler House lawsuit"). Plaintiff Partnership Placements, Inc., A. Bruce Rozet, Dean Earl Ross, Triad Investment Fund, Ltd. and Tyler Housing Fund, Ltd., although not named in the Tyler House lawsuit as defendants, contended that they were all insureds under the CGL policy and the parties that ultimately paid for the defense costs incurred by Landmark's policyholders in the Tyler House lawsuit. The plaintiffs claimed they entered into an agreement in 1990 which incorporated various terms of the CGL policy in which Landmark agreed to provide defense in the Tyler House Lawsuit. Landmark's policyholders tendered the defense and coverage for the Tyler House lawsuit to Landmark in March 1987. Landmark initially denied defense and coverage to its policyholders. In September 1990, however, a District of Columbia court held that Landmark had a duty to defend an additional insured in the Tyler House lawsuit under the same policy sold to National Investment Development Corporation. On Oct. 17, 1990, the plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant based on insurance bad faith and fraud theories of recovery. National Investment Development Corporation, Partnership Investors Services, Inc. and Stephen Moses tendered the defense to Landmark. In 1996, the parties entered into a contract for payment of defense fees in the Tyler House Action.
Settlement Discussions
Per the plaintiffs, the defendant made a settlement offer of $250,000.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year after the case was filed. On Sept. 2, 1994, before filing this case, the plaintiffs brought this action against Landmark and other insurers in Washington, D.C. for declaratory relief and bad faith. In the D.C. case, the defendant's summary judgment motion was granted on statute of limitations grounds. The D.C. judge held that the 1990 agreement did not toll or revive the statute of limitations for the action on the policy. The plaintiffs appealed that decision and simultaneously filed the California action. Landmark requested a stay of the California action. The court denied the request, stating that the action concerned the 1990 contract, not the policy. EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiffs' expert Thomas L. Carter, testified that a duty to defend is absolute and that the defendant's contention that it was only responsible for a proportionate share of the defense is contrary to industry practice and California law. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: The defendant's motion for JNOV and new trial were denied.
Deliberation
5 hours
Poll
12-0 (on 13 of the 16 special verdict questions) 11-1 (on the remaining three special verdict questions and two punitive damage questions)
Length
7 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390