Once again – Tharpe & Howell’s Bad Faith Defense Team achieved excellent results for an insurance carrier client when the California Court of Appeal upheld the previous granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment in an action alleging bad faith!
In the underlying case, an insured of Fire Insurance Exchange (the Firm’s client), was sued for an alleged sexually motivated assault and false imprisonment.
In the subsequent bad faith case, the main issue concerned coverage for “false imprisonment” that was keyed to an “occurrence” defined as an “accident.” Read More
The Firm recently secured an appellate victory for one of the Firm’s hotel/lodging clients, Motel 6.
In this case, the plaintiff/general contractor had demanded that Motel 6 pay it amounts the general contractor had paid to a subcontractor in relation to a welding project. The general contractor alleged that because it had to pay the subcontractor, Motel 6 was required to pay to the plaintiff/general contractor more than was allowed under the parties’ contract. Although the lower court had ruled against Motel 6, Tharpe & Howell appealed the decision on its behalf and obtained a victory in this contract dispute case! Read More
David Binder has secured yet another win in a string of appellate victories! In this case, the plaintiff sued his employer claiming he was terminated for being a whistle-blower, in retaliation for objecting to claimed unlawful acts, and in violation of public policy. After the Trial Court granted the Firm’s defense Motion for Summary Judgment, the plaintiff appealed.
In a unanimous decision, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the granting of Summary Judgment giving attorney Binder yet another victory on behalf of an employer client! Read More
The California Supreme Court denied a Petition for Review brought by an adversary plaintiff, challenging a California Court of Appeal decision to issue a Peremptory Writ of Mandate directing the Trial Court to set aside its order denying a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) filed by the Firm on behalf of a store owner client.
In this case, plaintiff sought to hold the Firm’s store owner client liable in negligence for loss of property as a result of plaintiff’s claim that while shopping at the client’s store, her wallet was stolen by an unidentified Hispanic male and an unidentified Hispanic female accomplice. Read More
