Ericsken Arbuthnot Prevails in an Employment Arbitration
Ericksen Arbuthnot attorneys David J. Frankenberger and Maribel Hernandez have prevailed in an employment arbitration case, obtaining a defense verdict in favor of their client (“Company”) on all four claims brought by a former employee. The Employee claimed she was terminated for associating with her Supervisor (who was over the age of 40) and suffered from a physical disability and medical condition. The Employee also alleged that the Company terminated her in retaliation for being perceived as a witness to her Supervisor’s own lawsuit against the Company. The Company denied liability and successfully established that the Employee was terminated for legitimate, non- retaliatory and nondiscriminatory reasons.
Maribel Hernandez to Moderate the Plenary Session at the State Bar of California’s 21st Annual Public Sector Conference
Maribel Hernandez, an attorney in the Fresno office, will moderate this year’s plenary session at the Public Sector Employment Conference on Friday, April 24, 2014 from 1:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. This program will review 2014’s significant cases and provide attendees with the latest legislation impacting public employment.
Ericksen Arbuthnot’s Appellate Practice Group Achieves Significant Victory for Insurer
Ericksen Arbuthnot’s Appellate Practice Group prevailed in a recently published appellate decision. On January 27, 2015, California’s Third Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order granting a motion to quash service of summons in favor of Ericksen Arbuthnot’s client, Auto-Owners Insurance Company. (Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 783 (“Greenwell”).)
Recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Sides with Majority Rule that Insurance Adjusters Owe No Duty to Insureds; No Bright-Line Test in California
Claims adjusters owe no duty to their insureds in most jurisdictions. As is often the situation, California is a special case. In the recent decision of Lodholtz v. York Risk Services Group, Inc. 2015 WL 542815 (February 11, 2015)(“Lodholtz”), the Seventh Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of dismissal in favor of the claims adjuster defendant. Applying Indiana law, the Lodholtz Court ruled that the claims adjuster owed no legal duty to its insured for its allegedly negligent handling of the underlying state court action. The Court concluded that “an adjuster is an agent of the insurer and therefore has no direct relationship with the insured.” (Citing Troxell v. American States Insurance Co. (1992) 596 N.E.2d 921, 925 n. 1.)
We wanted to know what our clients experience when they work with us, so we asked them. Happily, we can say that our definition of service matches our clients’ expectations.
Here is what you can expect from our attorneys at law:
Our lawyers provide quick turn around to meet your needs.
You will always know the status of your matter.
We start with an early evaluation of your case to find the most effective way to solve problems.
To maximize efficiency and accountability, we limit the number of attorneys who work on your case.
In each of our seven law offices, you have access to lawyers who have a depth of experience.