News Briefs
Nine Wilson Elser Attorneys Named to Northern California 2019 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists
July 18, 2019
Senior Counsel
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.
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.
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