Savers Property & Casualty Co. and "Certain English Insurers Subscribing to Agreement No. 97/1303" et al. v. Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Preiss
Published: Sep. 10, 2005 | Result Date: Aug. 1, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC273318 Verdict – $1,970,000
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Joan Marie M. Cotkin
(Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
David B. Parker
(Parker Shaffie LLP)
(technical)
Defendant
Bruce M. Friedman
(technical)
Edward J. McKinnon
(technical)
Facts
In April 2000, plaintiffs Savers Property & Casualty Co. and Lloyds of London hired the law firm, defendant
Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Preiss of Los Angeles. The firm was hired for consultation on whether to
defend a potentially covered claim in a personal injury case in which plaintiffs had rejected an offer of $1
million.
The underlying case involved a small construction business insured by plaintiffs, which was sued by a bystander.
The bystander was waiting on the insured's property when a load of sheet metal slid from the bed of a truck
and buried the bystander. The bystander was rendered quadriplegic. When approached by the plaintiffs' outside
adjuster, the defendant provided two formal coverage opinions and additional advice.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendants determined that the insurance companies did not need to defend or
indemnify their insured in this case because it was unclear whether the victim was an employee or a volunteer.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendantsÆ opinion was also based on the fact that the insured was not acting in the
scope of his business at the time of the accident because he was preparing to take the sheet metal back to his
home for personal use. A partner at the firm, defendant Mary McPherson, supervised a new associate on this
matter. On the defendantsÆ advice, the plaintiffs opted not to defend the insured. The insured sued them for bad
faith denial, which ultimately settled for $4.5 million. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for legal malpractice.
The defendant firm filed a cross-complaint for unpaid legal fees.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a demand of $2 million (C.C.P. Section 998). The defendant offered to settle for $500,000.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought an award of $3.9 million for legal malpractice and for the legal fees in the bad faith denial action. This amount was to cover the $3.5 million they had to pay in the settlement (beyond the $1 million policy limits), and $400,000 in attorneyÆs fees to defend the bad faith case.
Result
The jury found in favor of plaintiffs and awarded them $1,970,000. On the cross-complaint, the jury awarded the defendant firm $27,500 in attorney fees.
Deliberation
three days
Poll
9-3
Length
three weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390