Representative Cases

Over the course of her trial career, Judge Puri developed not only an expertise in insurance coverage but also across a wide array of complex matters. In every case where insurance coverage is at issue—whether involving personal injury, construction defect, sexual assault, elder abuse, or embezzlement—she had to master the underlying substantive law to effectively pursue or challenge coverage. This breadth of exposure required her to become fluent in the intricacies of each practice area, resulting in a uniquely well-rounded perspective. Rather than a specialist in name only, she became a de facto subject matter expert in both the coverage law and the underlying legal claims, making her an especially effective advocate, trial judge and now, mediator.

• California Law firm sued for legal malpractice alleging the firm missed an important deadline. When the firm tendered the claim to its insurance company, the insurer not only refused to defend but also rescinded the firm’s E&O policy on the grounds that the managing partner lied on the policy application. After years of litigation, the insurer reinstated the law firm’s coverage and contributed to settling the underlying malpractice claim.

• A Renaissance reenactment group was sued in civil court for failing to protect minors from molestation. Certain group members were arrested and convicted in criminal court for molestation of six children. The group settled the civil suit for millions and tendered the settlement to its carrier for reimbursement. The insurer refused because its policy contained a molestation exclusion. The group argued the exclusion did not cover negligence claims as was the insured’s intent. The insurer moved for summary judgment requesting that the court issue an order that there was no coverage as a matter of law because of the molestation exclusion. In an opinion of first impression, the court denied the summary judgment and shortly thereafter, the parties settled.

• A family in the Bay Area made a claim for a massive water leak that damaged their entire home. The family’s homeowner’s insurer denied coverage. The home fell into disrepair, consumed by mold damage from the water leak and the family invoked the policy’s appraisal provision. The appraisal panel reviewed the insurer’s bid to repair the home (of $800K) and the family’s bid to rebuild the home and determined it would take $2.1M to repair the home. The carrier still refused to pay. The family sued the carrier for bad faith and after deposition of key representatives, the case settled.

• Software company was sued for failing to perform on a contract. The company tendered the claim to its Technology Errors and Omissions carrier. The carrier agreed to defend the claim by appointing and paying for defense counsel. Two years into that suit, the software company tried to reach a settlement and invited the carrier to attend those discussions. The carrier declined. At the settlement meeting, the software company agreed to waive its outstanding invoices and tendered the settlement for reimbursement. The carrier refused, arguing that a waiver of invoices did not equal damages. A bench trial resolved the issue of first impression holding that invoices could be considered damages under the terms of the Tech E&O policy at issue. Shortly before Phase 2 of trial, the bad faith phase, was to begin, the case settled.

• A public institution bought a complex insurance policy through brokers. The institution provides health insurance for their employees through a self-funded plan and also subscribes to a kind of insurance, called stop loss insurance, to protect itself against catastrophic claims. Names of patients who could possibly become high-cost insureds were sent to the broker so those patients could be properly insured. The broker failed to include a key group of patients, whose insurance claims tallied over $1M in medical care costs. The institution’s claim for reimbursement was properly denied as a result. The broker refused to acknowledge the mistake and took the case to trial. The jury announced within an hour of deliberations that the broker committed negligence and awarded a majority of the medical care costs sought.

• Parents sued their next door neighbors for negligence alleging the neighbors' teenager had molested their child while babysitting him. The teenager’s family tendered the case to their homeowner’s carrier, who denied coverage based on sexual misconduct exclusion. It was argued that while there may not be any coverage for the teenage boy’s acts, there was coverage for the parents. After intensive negotiations at mediation, the carrier agreed to contribute a significant share of the settlement to resolve the case short of trial.

• An employee of a care-giving company fleeced an elderly client of all her savings. The company made a claim for reimbursement under its employee dishonesty policy and the claim was successfully resolved after investigation and mediation.

• A California family’s severely developmentally disabled son was placed into a Level 4 group home on a part time basis. He lived with his parents on a part time basis as well. After an incident in the group home, tragedy struck and the son strangled and ended up killing his roommate. The contract for Level 4 homes requires 24-hour supervision. The son was found incompetent to stand trial and his parents were sued in civil court for wrongful death. The family’s homeowner’s insurance declined to defend the family against this lawsuit on the grounds that the son acted intentionally. After litigation, the insurer reversed course, provided a defense and tendered full policy limits to settle the matter.

• Complex insurance coverage issues involved in wrongful death action by son of father killed in accident based on negligence theory against the driver of the car, a pastor. Plaintiff sued the pastor’s church under a vicarious liability theory alleging the accident occurred during a church trip.