Firm News

Discover case highlights, industry trends, and firm news.

Featured Articles

News & Insights

Sort by:

Onward to a Cure: 2024 Susan G. Komen 3-Day®

Thank you to each of our donors who supported Shoecraft Burton’s participation in the Susan G. Komen 3-Day® in honor of our Associate and breast cancer survivor, Rachael Kelley....
Read More
Marijuana Law – A Comparative Analysis

Marijuana Law – A Comparative Analysis

Published in the September 2018 issue of For The Defense magazine (DRI The Voice of the Defense Bar); Michelle Burton, Esq. and Robert May, Esq. discuss A Comparative...
Read More
ACTUAL COST COVERAGE OR REPLACEMENT COST COVERAGE

ACTUAL COST COVERAGE OR REPLACEMENT COST COVERAGE

Buying a home, for most of us, is both an exciting and overwhelming experience. During the transaction we are inundated with mounds of legal documents that our real...
Read More

Walk for the Cure

Burton Kelley partners to walk 60 Miles November 18-20 in the 3-Day Susan G. Komen Walk for the Cure with a team of survivors to support finding a...
Read More

Industry News

A VALID 998 OFFER DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ACCEPTANCE LINE

Case Overview:

In October 2013, the Fourth District Court of Appeal further clarified the requirements for a valid Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer in Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company.

During heavy rains in 2005, Lars and Lisa Rouland’s (Plaintiffs) home in Bluebird Canyon, Laguna, California, suffered damage when a landslide dislodged a footing, compromising the home’s support. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC), which insured the home, denied their claim due to standard exclusions for subsidence, earth movement, wear and tear, and slow leaking pipes. The policy did not cover land repairs, including land stabilization.

Legal Proceedings:

Plaintiffs sued PSIC for bad faith denial of a covered claim. PSIC won summary judgment, but Plaintiffs appealed, arguing hidden decay in a sewer pipe—not rain—caused the hillside collapse. The appellate court reversed, citing a triable issue of fact due to ambiguous policy language regarding collapse from hidden decay.
After reversal, PSIC deposed Plaintiffs’ experts, who were revealed to be friends of Plaintiffs’ counsel with no foundation for their opinions, relying on a photograph rather than inspecting the pipe. Plaintiffs designated new experts for trial.