Professional Liability – Insurance Broker
Defended insurance broker against allegations of professional negligence. Plaintiff shipping company sued its broker and insurance carrier following the denial of a claim for more than $10 million in property damage to its pavement and wharf caused by an earthquake. The policy was placed weeks before the earthquake but was delivered following the earthquake and contained an exclusion for “wharves, docks, piers, pilings and pavement.” A trial that lasted more than 100 days resulted in a defense verdict for the broker, but a general verdict against the insurance carrier for $12 million in compensatory and $11.25 million in punitive damages. Affirmed on appeal.

Plaintiff, a cable television operator on the island of Guam that suffered extensive property damage following a severe typhoon, sued its broker and London underwriters for breach of contract, bad faith and negligence following the denial of a portion of the claim. We represented the London broker. After a trial before the district court in Guam that spanned more than eight months, the court issued a directed verdict in favor of Lloyds and the London broker.

Professional Liability – Broker-Dealer
Defended broker-dealer in a financial fraud case involving broker’s selling away of fraudulent bonds to approximately 65 plaintiffs. Matter settled with most of the plaintiffs prior to an eight-week trial, with the remaining plaintiffs settling favorably just following verdict.

Slip and Fall
Plaintiff slipped on a downhill cart path at the Lake Course of the Olympic Club, injuring her knee. She alleged the cart path constituted a dangerous condition. Jury awarded a defense verdict after a two-week trial.

Construction Liability
Defended a steel erection company against allegations of negligence arising when a 23-foot steel column fell onto a construction worker rendering him a quadriplegic. We were able to enforce the contractual indemnity and additional insured provisions of the contract, and the case settled on the first day of trial.

Product Liability
Plaintiff, a cardiologist, fell over his handlebars when his rear brakes allegedly failed. He suffered bilateral wrist fractures and claimed he would eventually develop traumatic arthritis, rendering him incapable of performing his job. Settlement demand was in excess of $3 million. We represented the designer and manufacturer of a specialty brake. After a three week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict.

General Negligence
Defended driver that rear-ended plaintiffs’ car in a multi-vehicle accident. Plaintiffs were awarded $150,000 at arbitration, but sought a trial de novo. In a 9-3 verdict, jury found liability but awarded only $2,500 to both plaintiffs. The court later reduced the award to $0 on motion based upon plaintiffs’ failure to do better than the arbitration award at trial.

Representative Matters

Professional Liability – Insurance Broker
Defended insurance broker against allegations of professional negligence. Plaintiff shipping company sued its broker and insurance carrier following the denial of a claim for more than $10 million in property damage to its pavement and wharf caused by an earthquake. The policy was placed weeks before the earthquake but was delivered following the earthquake and contained an exclusion for “wharves, docks, piers, pilings and pavement.” A trial that lasted more than 100 days resulted in a defense verdict for the broker, but a general verdict against the insurance carrier for $12 million in compensatory and $11.25 million in punitive damages. Affirmed on appeal.

Plaintiff, a cable television operator on the island of Guam that suffered extensive property damage following a severe typhoon, sued its broker and London underwriters for breach of contract, bad faith and negligence following the denial of a portion of the claim. We represented the London broker. After a trial before the district court in Guam that spanned more than eight months, the court issued a directed verdict in favor of Lloyds and the London broker.

Professional Liability – Broker-Dealer
Defended broker-dealer in a financial fraud case involving broker’s selling away of fraudulent bonds to approximately 65 plaintiffs. Matter settled with most of the plaintiffs prior to an eight-week trial, with the remaining plaintiffs settling favorably just following verdict.

Slip and Fall
Plaintiff slipped on a downhill cart path at the Lake Course of the Olympic Club, injuring her knee. She alleged the cart path constituted a dangerous condition. Jury awarded a defense verdict after a two-week trial.

Construction Liability
Defended a steel erection company against allegations of negligence arising when a 23-foot steel column fell onto a construction worker rendering him a quadriplegic. We were able to enforce the contractual indemnity and additional insured provisions of the contract, and the case settled on the first day of trial.

Product Liability
Plaintiff, a cardiologist, fell over his handlebars when his rear brakes allegedly failed. He suffered bilateral wrist fractures and claimed he would eventually develop traumatic arthritis, rendering him incapable of performing his job. Settlement demand was in excess of $3 million. We represented the designer and manufacturer of a specialty brake. After a three week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict.

General Negligence
Defended driver that rear-ended plaintiffs’ car in a multi-vehicle accident. Plaintiffs were awarded $150,000 at arbitration, but sought a trial de novo. In a 9-3 verdict, jury found liability but awarded only $2,500 to both plaintiffs. The court later reduced the award to $0 on motion based upon plaintiffs’ failure to do better than the arbitration award at trial.

Representative Matters

$74 Million Cliffhanger Ends with Affirmance on Appeal

Edward Garson (Partner-San Francisco), William Cook (Partner-Detroit), and Francis Torrance (Of Counsel-San Francisco) brought to a satisfactory conclusion the hugely contentious case, TransMart, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART). In the underlying case, defended by Ed Garson, Francis Torrence and other members of the San Francisco team in 2019, TransMart entered into an option contract with BART, giving TransMart the opportunity to lease space in BART’s train stations for retail space. When the deal fell apart and BART rejected TransMart’s effort to exercise the option, TransMart sought $90+ million in damages. The jury unanimously ruled against the plaintiff’s breach of contract action and 9–3 against their breach of covenant of good faith claim. On April 28, 2022, Ed argued the appeal and Bill was the chief author of the appellate briefs. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District wasted no time in agreeing with Ed and Bill in all respects. Another great win for BART, a long-standing client of the firm.

Edward P. Garson and William S. Cook

Your Privacy Choices
We value your privacy. Under privacy laws in your jurisdiction, you have the right to control how your personal information is used, including the right to opt out of the “sale” or “sharing” of your personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising. You may also limit the use of your sensitive personal information.

Below, you can review and adjust your cookie and data sharing preferences. For more information about how we use your data, please see our Privacy Policy.

Your Rights and Choices

Opt Out of Sale or Sharing: You may opt out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for advertising and analytics purposes by turning off Advertising & Targeting Cookies. We will honor your choice and will not sell or share your personal information for these purposes unless you enable these cookies again. Wilson Elser does not sell or share personal information in any other manner.

Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information: If we collect sensitive personal information, you may limit its use to only what is necessary to provide requested services by adjusting your preferences here. Please contact privacy@wilsonelser.com with any questions.

Global Privacy Control: We honor browser-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (GPC). If we detect such a signal, your opt-out preference will be automatically applied.

These cookies are essential for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually set in response to actions made by you, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, or filling in forms.

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They may be set through our site by us or our analytics partners to understand your interests and deliver more relevant content to you. If you do not allow these cookies, we will not know when you have visited our site

Privacy Settings