Renteria v. K&R Transportation
N/AOUTCOME: Federal trial won, appeal reversed and remanded to superior court. Is still pending in Superior Court.
Class action against motor carrier for misclassification, violation of insurance code. 423 F.3d 1079
Neil S Lerner's Legal Cases (17)
Los Angeles, CA
Admiralty and maritime Lawyer at Los Angeles, CA
Practice Areas: Admiralty & Maritime, Transportation ... +3 more
Pacific Insurance v. Kent
N/AOUTCOME: Win for client on Summary Judgment.
Rescisison of marine insurance policy. 120 F. Supp. 2d 1205.
Cigna v. Polaris Pictures Cor.
N/AOUTCOME: Win for client at trial, win for client on appeal. 159 F.3d 412
Rescission for misrepresenting and concealing facts at time of application for marine insurance. (co-lead counsel)
Freeman & Mills v. Belcher Oil
N/AOUTCOME: Partial win for client on appeal, tort eliminated. 11 Cal. 4th 85
Elimination of tort of bad faith denial of existence of contract, co-counsel for prevailing party.
In re Mission Bay Jet Sports, LLC
N/AOUTCOME: Appeal successful in determining admiralty jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs-in-Limitation brought an action under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 30501 et seq. for exoneration from or limitation of liability regarding an accident that occurred involving a ... personal watercraft on Mission Bay in San Diego. Two claimants appeared to move to dismiss the action for lack of admiralty jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion. Plaintiffs-in-Limitation appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that the test for admiralty jurisdiction as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in various cases was satisfied, despite the fact that the accident had occurred in a part of Mission Bay that was reserved exclusively for use by personal watercraft. First, the Court found that the waters where the accident occurred were subject to tidal influences and therefore were navigable. Second, it found that the accident involved by a vessel in navigable waters to a passenger, and therefore presented the requisite potential to disrupt maritime commerce. Finally, it found that the activity giving rise to the accident was the operation of a vessel in navigable waters, and therefore presented the requisite substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Since the Court found that the accident met all of the requirements for admiralty jurisdiction, the Court granted the appeal, reversed the decision of the district court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In re Gibson
N/AOUTCOME: Motion to Enforce Settlement Granted
Plaintiffs-in-Limitation filed an action under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. 30501 et seq. regarding a collision between two recreational vessels that occurred on Lake Texoma in Oklahoma a ... nd which resulted in personal injuries and five deaths. Several claimants appeared to advance claims. Plaintiffs-in-Limitation settled all of their claims at a mandatory settlement conference. However, two claimants thereafter alleged that they had not agreed to the settlement and had not authorized their attorneys to accept it on their behalf. Said attorneys withdrew, and the claimants btained new representation. Plaintiffs-in-Limitation filed a motion enforce the settlement, which the Court granted. The Court found that claimants had agreed to settle and had authorized their attorneys to accept the settlement on their behalf. It found no conflict of interest or fraud that could be imputed to Plaintiffs-in-Limitation to nullify the settlement. Therefore, the Court ordered the claimants to execute appropriate settlement documents and a stipulation to dismiss their claims.
Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Woolard
N/AOUTCOME: Default Judgment for Plaintiff
Plaintiff marine insurer filed a declaratory relief action for recission and voiding of the policy of its insured predicated on several misrepresentations the Defendant insured made in the application ... for insurance and during the term of the policy. Defendant failed to plead or defend in the action. Therefore, the Court determined that Defendant violated his duty of utmost fidelity regarding disclosure of material risks, declared the policy void ab initio, and declared that Plaintiff did not owe anyone any sum for damage to the insured vessel.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
