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
© 2025 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 AllHawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement
4 minute readBill Would Allow Californians to Sue Big Oil for Climate-Linked Wildfires, Floods
3 minute readOnce the LA Fires Are Extinguished, Expect the Litigation to Unfold for Years
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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