Unfortunately, the purchasing plaintiff later experienced further leaking and filed suit against the general contractor, architect and roofer. Kelly Lynch undertook the defense of the general contractor and immediately began substantive investigation and discovery. Kelly’s strategy was to relieve the general contractor of the burden of the suit quickly, and to expend as little of the general contractor’s funds as possible. Based on Kelly’s pointed discovery and well-reasoned arguments, the general contractor prevailed on a motion for summary judgment, which knocked out the negligence and fraud causes of action against it. Kelly successfully argued that the negligence cause of action had accrued to the prior owners of the property and had not been assigned to the purchaser plaintiff in the course of the sale of the home. Thus, the general contractor was able to save what would have been tens of thousands of dollars in defense fees.

Developer’s counsel sought reconsideration on several grounds and the trial court reaffirmed its finding that the settlement was in good faith. Developer’s counsel thereafter filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate regarding the good faith settlement determination. Upon review of the opposition brief prepared by Lauren O’Brien, the Fifth Appellate District summarily denied the petition without a request for oral argument.

Plaintiffs were real estate investors who had been found liable at a prior trial for damages as a result of their sale of residential property to a third-party buyer. Plaintiffs claimed that their general contractor, who had performed repairs on the property prior to sale, was negligent and defrauded them and sought nearly $900,000.00 in damages from the general contractor on an indemnity theory.

Through aggressive pre-trial and trial motions by Mr. Carroll, many of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed or limited by the judge. After a three-week trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs only $9,500.00, about 1% of their claim.

At age 14, Annie was an avid dirt bike enthusiast, owning two Honda bikes. Annie invited a friend to her house to spend the afternoon. While her father was in the garage working, Annie and her friend jumped on the motorbikes and headed out on the open road. Tragically, the friend was struck by a car a few blocks away and suffered serious injuries.

The parents of the injured youngster sued the father for negligent supervision, challenging the decision to allow the girls to ride the bikes. The father tendered the lawsuit to his homeowner carrier, which denied coverage. The father sued his carrier for various damages, including punitive damages.

The carrier hired Hardiman & Carroll to defend its decision to deny coverage. The case proceeded to trial, and the carrier’s case was presented by Michael and Cheryl. At the end of trial the Court ruled that coverage did not exist, and entered a defense verdict on all claims.

A Hardiman & Carroll carrier client, faced with litigation pending against a named insured, agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. Lauren O’Brien performed an extensive investigation into the scope of work of the insured at the site along with the policy and policy application documents. Lauren advised the carrier that the potential for coverage was not present based on the work performed and a rarely relied-upon exclusionary provision. The carrier ultimately decided to continue to defend the insured and seek recovery following conclusion of the underlying construction defect action.

After the underlying action concluded, Michael Hardiman and Dolores Dalton filed an action against the insured to recover sums paid by the carrier in defending the non-covered claims. Michael and Dolores obtained a judgment on behalf of the carrier in excess of $700,000.

Hardiman & Carroll has been advising carriers for many years on the interpretation of commercial and homeowner property policies, the investigation of property claims, the proper amount of benefits (if due) and the available options if coverage issues are present. Our experience spans personal lines single family homeowner losses to commercial earthquake and 9/11 claims.

For example, a recent claim was submitted to a personal lines carrier client, involving vandalism damage to a newly constructed house in Modesto and its contents. After investigation, the carrier denied the claim. The insured sued, seeking the usual damages implicated in the denial of first party benefit claims: policy benefits, compensation for economic losses and emotional distress, punitive damages and attorneys fees.

Hardiman & Carroll took the case to trial on behalf of the client. Michael Hardiman established that the claim was either entirely fabricated or exaggerated. Additionally, under the circumstances the carrier acted properly and no benefits were due. Defense verdict.

Kenneth Litton handled the action and Ken’s early goal was to obtain a dismissal of what he deemed to be a frivolous suit. Additionally, while Ken assisted the client in obtaining insurance coverage for the claim, the client was concerned about ongoing legal fees.

Despite the fact that demurrers are rarely granted without the Court providing the party with an opportunity to amend its pleadings, Ken chose to file a demurrer in the action in order to attempt early resolution and avoid the high costs of ongoing litigation for a cost-conscious client. Based on the strength of Ken’s briefing of the issues, the demurrer was granted without leave to amend. The case was closed with minimal time and expense to the client or the carrier which ultimately accepted the defense.

Lauren O’Brien represented a carrier client at a Department of Fair Employment and Housing administrative proceeding wherein an employee was making a claim of sexual harassment at her job with the client’s named insured. The purpose of the administrative proceeding was to determine the claimant’s right to sue her employer for sexual harassment. The parties attended two days of mediation. Based on various coverage issues presented, and the potential for a claim of negligent supervision, the carrier requested that Lauren attend the mediation sessions in an effort to investigate the claim and determine if resolution were possible prior to the filing of a formal suit and the expense of defending a sexual harassment action.

By the end of the mediation, Lauren had negotiated a resolution of the plaintiff’s claims, as well as a policy release from the insured on behalf of the carrier client. Lauren negotiated a contribution to the settlement by the insured in excess of 65% of the total.

Lauren O’Brien took on what appeared, at first blush, to be a run-of-the-mill coverage assignment. The carrier issued policies with an anti-Montrose insuring agreement endorsement, providing coverage only for damage which first manifested during the policy period.

The claim, tendered by its plumbing contractor insured, dealt with a discrete water leak at a custom residence. The leak occurred well outside the relevant policy period, and Lauren prepared the proper recommendation and denial letters for the client.

Unfortunately, due to a history of switching insurance carriers with varying policy provisions, the insured was left with three carriers and three coverage denials. Therefore, not long after issuing the denial on behalf of her client, Lauren received correspondence from the insured’s personal counsel, along with a draft complaint naming all three carriers as defendants.

Rather than undertaking the time and expense of responding to the complaint and filing the requisite motion for summary judgment, Lauren advised the client she would attempt to resolve the claim informally. Lauren contacted the other denying-carrier representatives and ultimately convinced both carriers of the merits of saving the cost of responding to the complaint. Ultimately, each of the carriers contributed to resolution for a fraction of the potential cost of defense. Lauren’s client was not the only one impressed by Lauren’s hard work and creativity -one of those other carriers now also looks to Hardiman & Carroll for advice.