Insurer Need Not Defend Real Estate Broker Sued by Sellers and Buyers of $5 Million California Home
A federal district court in California has ruled that an insurance company did not have to defend a real estate broker sued by sellers and buyers of a multi-million-dollar ocean-front home in California.
May 14, 2019 at 08:01 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is reprinted with permission from the Insurance Coverage Law Center, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
A federal district court in California has ruled that an insurance company did not have to defend a real estate broker sued by sellers and buyers of a multi-million-dollar ocean-front home in California.
The Case
Gary Gill Martin, a self-employed broker in the residential real estate market in North San Diego County, California, sued his insurer, QBE Insurance Corporation, for refusing to defend him in a state court lawsuit filed against him by Brooks and Darlene Gifford (the “Gifford litigation” or “Gifford”). Gifford was the second state court lawsuit filed against Mr. Martin arising from his alleged dual representation of the Giffords, as sellers, and Eric and Lauren Schiermeyer, as buyers, in the sale of a multi-million-dollar ocean-front home in Solana Beach, California (the “Property”).
QBE, which had issued a real estate services errors and omissions liability insurance policy to Mr. Martin, denied coverage of the Gifford claim based on its finding that the Gifford litigation was related to the same real estate transaction at issue in an earlier lawsuit filed by the Schiermeyers (the “Schiermeyer litigation” or “Schiermeyer”).
Specifically, QBE's denial letter stated that the Gifford claim “was not first made during the QBE policy period” because “the claims and damages asserted in [the Gifford litigation] arise out of the same real estate transaction, the same alleged failure to disclose unpermitted structures on the property that was sold, and the same commission you received as a dual agent for the transaction” that were at issue in the Schiermeyer litigation.
Mr. Martin asserted causes of action against QBE for breach of contract and tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. He contended that QBE's wrongful refusal to defend him had forced him to settle Gifford for more than $500,000 of his own funds to avoid the risk of further litigation and trial.
QBE moved to dismiss, arguing there was no coverage under its policy. In particular, QBE argued that it did not have a duty to defend Mr. Martin because, under the policy's terms, the Gifford lawsuit and the Schiermeyer lawsuit constituted the same “Claim” that was deemed made before the start of Mr. Martin's QBE policy.
The QBE Policy
The QBE policy provided:
All Claims arising from the same Wrongful Act will be deemed to have been made at the earlier of the following times:
(1) The date the first of those Claims is made against any of You; or
(2) The first date We receive Your written notice of the Wrongful Act. The provisions of the Policy in effect on that date will apply.
The District Court's Decision
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted QBE's motion.
In its decision, the court first found that the Gifford litigation and the Schiermeyer litigation each constituted a claim under the QBE policy.
The court then reasoned that the complaints in Gifford and Schiermeyer involved the same alleged real estate transaction: the sale of the Property to the Schiermeyers for $5,100,000; that both claims were based on allegations regarding Mr. Martin's role as the dual agent of the Giffords and Schiermeyer; and that both claims asserted that Mr. Martin was liable for negligent misrepresentations based on his alleged failure to make certain disclosures regarding the condition of the Property, such as the condition of a beach staircase attached to a seawall.
Therefore, the court ruled, because Gifford and Schiermeyer arose from the same alleged wrongful acts, Gifford was deemed to have been made at the same time as Schiermeyer under the policy. Because that was before the inception of the policy, and because coverage only was available for claims made during the policy period, there was no coverage for Gifford, the court concluded.
The case is Martin v. QBE Ins. Corp., No.: 18-CV-2439 W (BLM) (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Gary Gill Martin, an individual, Plaintiff: Anthony Francis Witteman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Theodora Oringher, Costa Mesa, CA. For QBE Insurance Corporation, a California corporation, Defendant: Jordon Edward Harriman, Rebecca R. Weinreich, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. Mr. Meyerowitz is the Director of the Insurance Coverage Law Center and editor-in-chief of journals on insurance law, banking law, bankruptcy law, energy law, government contracting law, and privacy and cybersecurity law, among other subjects. He may be contacted at smeyerowitz@
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Wake Up Call to the Life Insurance Industry:' California Sues Insurers
3 minute readFederal Judge Sides With Lyft Driver in Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage
5 minute readFormer CVS Exec Faces Trade Secrets Suit for Allegedly Helping Chickasaw Nation Case
3 minute readFacing a Shrinking Talent Pool, Insurance Defense Firms Are Fighting to Add Attorneys
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1$1.9M Settlement Approved in Class Suit Over Vacant Property Fees
- 2Former Wamco Exec Charged With $600M 'Cherry-Picking' Fraud
- 3Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
- 4NY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
- 5Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250