John J. Immordino Of Counsel




John Immordino has focused his practice of more than 30 years on the areas of surety, fidelity, commercial litigation and construction law. Over the course of his career, John has gained extensive litigation and trial experience in state and federal courts, bankruptcy court and appellate courts.

John comes highly recommended by his clients, who appreciate his responsiveness and clear focus on the issues as well as his resourcefulness and capacity to provide value-added service. His early experience overseeing the work of local defense counsel throughout the United States as general claims counsel for sureties involved with the Small Business Administration’s Reinsured Surety Bond Program makes John keenly aware of the unique needs of his clientele.

Areas of Focus

Surety / Fidelity
John has handled a wide variety of surety matters, providing counsel and legal services to sureties with respect to claims made against the surety’s performance bonds and payment bonds. He also has assisted sureties with recovery and subrogation efforts. John’s experience includes handling and/or supervising more than 750 payment bond lawsuits. He has also dealt with professional liability and general liability claims. John has addressed fidelity bond claims involving employee dishonesty and check fraud and has experience in other fidelity areas, including financial guarantee bonds.

Commercial Litigation
A seasoned and pragmatic litigator, John has the breadth and depth of experience to serve large, well-established enterprises and small, entrepreneurial organizations effectively. He provides innovative legal strategies while executing focused litigation within designated time frames and budgets. John handles delicate negotiations among firmly entrenched parties, helping to resolve disagreements about division of assets and providing clear-headed advice and a range of options to help bridge the chasm between dueling parties.

John is experienced in providing counsel and advice and defending construction-related claims for principals and their insurers. Successful resolution of construction litigation often involves complex issues related to liability and other aspects of insurance coverage. John has handled a variety of matters from subsidence to structural defects, personal injury to property damage, and mechanics’ liens to economic loss caused by delays. In addition, he defends architects, engineers, construction managers and contractors, as well as their professional liability insurers, in malpractice suits and provides pre-claim counsel.

Representative Matters

Secured a victory for a surety client who had paid a number of claims on several projects and was able to obtain contract funds to reimburse those losses. In a published decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District, Riverside Division held that the surety had a superior interest in the contract funds to the extent of the claims paid by the surety. This was the first case in the Ninth Circuit that enforced the surety’s equitable subrogation rights to contract funds for payment bond claims on private works of improvement. Recovery was approximately $500,000.

Prevailed at trial on behalf of a completing surety that, in agreeing to complete a defaulted project, had reserved its rights to reimbursement of all losses, including attorney’s fees and construction consultant expenses. The court ruled that the city had materially breached the contract with the surety’s principal, and thus the surety was entitled to complete reimbursement of its losses. Recovery was approximately $1 million.

Successful at trial on a prevailing wage claim on a payment bond for a public works project. Several former employees of the surety’s bonded principal brought suit claiming underpayment of prevailing wages. Obtained judgment at the close of plaintiff’s case, completely defeating a $250,000 claim.

Obtained summary judgment on a principal’s suit against a surety for interference with economic advantage. In that matter, a contractor submitted a bid and bid bond that substantially exceeded the amount the surety had authorized. The government rejected the bid, and the contractor sued the surety claiming damages of more than $3 million.

In a landmark case benefiting contractors and the sureties that bond them, represented the surety in a matter ultimately decided by the California Supreme Court, holding that a contractor does not have to prove intentional misrepresentation or active concealment to prevail on a claim of breach of warranty or non-disclosure of material facts against a public entity.

View All Events