Attorney Hema Patel Mehta's Legal Cases

Insurance

Insured vs. Insurer#1

N/A

OUTCOME: Won on msj

Represented an insurance carrier that was sued for breach of contract and bad faith arising out of the insurerâ€™s denial of coverage for a civil law suit in which the insured allegedly accidently kill ... ed the decedent. The insured pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter admitting that he had an imperfect claim of self-defense, when he struck the decedent with a loaded pistol that accidently discharged, killing the decedent. Agreeing with our interpretation of the criminal acts exclusion in the insurance policy, the court found that the insurer acted properly in denying coverage because it was the criminal nature of the act, not the degree of criminal culpability, which triggered the applicability of the exclusion.

Insurance

Insured v. Insurer #2

N/A

OUTCOME: Won on msj

Represented an insurance carrier in a case in which police officers sought a defense and indemnity in response to plaintiffsâ€™ claims that the officers sent anonymous harassing text messages. Plaintif ... fs sued the officers alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se for violations of two criminal statutes - harassment and disorderly conduct - invasion of privacy and conspiracy. The trial court ruled in the insurerâ€™s favor, finding that there was no duty to defend and indemnify the police officers as there was no occurrence to trigger coverage and that the allegations of intentional conduct fell outside the scope of their employment.

Insurance

Insured v. Insurer #3

N/A

OUTCOME: Won on msj

Obtained summary judgment in favor of the insurer for its alleged bad faith in denying a water loss claim. Plaintiff alleged that she had interior water damage to her home due to wind damage to the r ... oof. After conducting a thorough inspection of the roof and the interior, the insurer concluded that none of the damage caused to the interior or the roof was caused by wind damage. The plaintiff instituted an action against the insurer arising out of its denial to pay benefits for her alleged loss. The court agreed that the insurer acted reasonably in denying coverage and did not act in bad faith.

Insurance

Insured v. Insurer #4

N/A

OUTCOME: Won on msj

Represented an insurer where the insured sought first-party coverage for a fire loss and also sought defense and indemnification with respect to an action filed against him by the injured party. The i ... nsurer issued a vacant building insurance policy that contained vacancy warranty and secured premises warranty endorsements. The insurer contended, among other things, that the vacancy warranty endorsement barred coverage because the dwelling was tenant occupied at the time of the fire. The insured contended that it was unaware of the occupancy and, as such, the warranty did not apply. The court, agreeing with the insurer, found that the language of the vacancy warranty endorsement was clear and unambiguous and did not require the insuredâ€™s knowledge of the occupancy. The court ruled that the insurer did not have a duty to defend and/or indemnify the insured and that the insurer did not breach the insurance contract by failing to pay the insuredâ€™s fire loss claim.

Hema Patel Mehta's Legal Cases (4)

Insured vs. Insurer#1

Insured v. Insurer #2

Insured v. Insurer #3

Insured v. Insurer #4