Insurance Law Community | LexisNexis
Featured Content

Paul Glad, William T. Barker & Michael Barnes

Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

Paul Glad is a partner in the San Francisco office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP and has a broad insurance practice, with an emphasis on trials and appeals. Mr. Glad has participated in nearly 40 published insurance appellate decisions. He is the co-author of two books published annually: California Insurance Law Handbook and DiMugno's and Glad's California Insurance Laws Annotated. He has also authored more than 30 articles regarding a variety of insurance issues. Mr. Glad was named the No. 1 Insurance Attorney in Chambers USA (2003-2007). He was also selected as one of the top 500 lawyers in the United States by LawDragon, a legal publisher.

Access Paul Glad's Martindale-Hubbell profile on martindale.com.

Education:
University of California, Los Angeles, Member of Moot Court with honors, 1975-1977, J.D., 1977
Stanford University, B.A., with distinction, 1972

Practice Areas:

Professional Profile:

Mr. Glad serves as chair for Sonnenschein’s Insurance Practice Group.
JUDICIAL CLERKING EXPERIENCE: 
  • Law Clerk to Justice James A. Cobey, California Court of Appeal, (2nd Appellate District) 1977-1978.
  • Extern to Judge William M. Byrne, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1976.
HONORS: 
  • Recognized as a number-one insurance attorney in California in the Chambers USA - America’s Leading Lawyers for Business client guide (2003-2007). 
  • Named one of the top 100 lawyers in the 2007 edition of Northern California Super Lawyers.
  • Recognized in Who’s Who Legal: California 2007 in the Insurance and Reinsurance category.
  • Selected as one of the “Top 500 Lawyers in the United States” by Lawdragon, a legal publisher (2005).
  • Named “Outstanding Volunteer of the Year,” Bar Association of San Francisco (BASF).
  • Recognized as one of California’s “Super Lawyers” (2004-2006).
  • Bi-monthly Columnist, Insurance Adjuster (1985-1989).
  • Editor, Insurance and Reinsurance Law International, (1987-1989)
EDITORIAL POSITIONS:
  • Editor, Insurance Litigation Reporter (1985-Present)
  • Legal Editor, California Broker (1986-Present)
  • Editor, California Insurance Law And Regulation (1989-Present)
  • Business Insurance Editor, Underwriters Report (1985-1999)
  • Bi-monthly Columnist, Insurance Adjuster (1985-1989)
  • Editor, Insurance and Reinsurance Law International, (1987-1989)
LEGAL ACTIVITIES:
  • Director, San Francisco Bar Association (1995-1996)
  • Chairman, San Francisco Bar Association Insurance Law Section (1993-1995)
  • Chairman, Endowment of San Francisco Bar Association (1992-1998), and Director (1992-Present)
  • Faculty, Environmental Law Institute
  • Faculty, Business Insurance Law Institute
  • Chairman, National Seminar on Advertising Injury Insurance Coverage Issues, New York (1991)
  • Chairman, Bad Faith Claims and Trends, New York (1994 and 1996) and Orlando (1995)
  • Presenter, significant issues in California Insurance Law, California Appellate Judicial Conference (1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000)
  • Regular seminar presenter for PLI, Executive Enterprises, ACI, Rutter Group and CEB.
MAJOR MATTERS:
  • State of California v. Underwriters, et al., Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. 239784, (2005). Insurance coverage trial regarding the State of California’s alleged $750 million liability for the Stringfellow Acid Pits.
  • Western MacArthur Company and MacArthur Company v. General Accident, et al., Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 721595-7, (1992); In Re Western Asbestos Company, Western MacArthur Co. and MacArthur Co., US Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of CA, Oakland, Administered under Case No. 02-46284-T, (2004).  Civil litigation and bankruptcy trial ultimately resulting in $2.5 billion in payments for asbestos liability coverage.
  • Turner v. Allianz, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 324927 (2001). Representation of insurers in Section 17200, Unfair Business Practices trial regarding payment of contingent commissions.
  • Exxon Corporation, et al. v. Insurance Company of North America, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 971376, (2000).  Insurance coverage trial regarding $1.2 billion in Exxon environmental contamination liability.
  • Tosco Corp. v. Hartford, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 952681, (1999).  Insurance coverage dispute regarding Tosco Corporation’s liability for cleanup of nationwide environmental contamination.
  • Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., et al. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 847212, (1998).  Insurance coverage trial concerning Syntex Corporation’s billion dollar liability for dioxin contamination of Times Beach, Missouri.
KEY PUBLISHED CASES:
Bad Faith:
  • Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones, 33 Cal.4th 917 (2004) (absence of bad faith within the context of an insurance business dispute.).
  • Transport Insurance Company v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269 (Texas Supreme Ct. 1995) (no fiduciary duty and limitation upon statutory and civil fraud).
  • Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. National Bank for Cooperatives, 848 F.Supp. 1347 (1994).
  • Lunsford v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins., 18 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 1994).
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 876 S.W.2d 145 (Texas Supreme Ct. 1993) (no statutory bad faith).
  • Yap v. Industrial Indemnity Co., 1993 Cal.App. Lexis 840 (1993).
Environmental:
  • Aerojet-General Corp. v. American Excess Ins. Co., 97 Cal.App.4th 387 (2002) (res judicata effect of declaratory relief judgment).
  • Stonewall v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 46 Cal.App.4th 1810 (1996) (horizontal exhaustion of primary coverage).
CGL Coverage:
  • Rosen v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 30 Cal.4th 1070 (2003) (court prohibited from rewriting clear policy language to conform to public policy or insured's expectations).
  • Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Company, 27 Cal.4th 718 (2002) (stipulated judgment approved as entered in good faith by trial court not binding upon insurer).
  • Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 11 Cal.4th 1 (1995) (no coverage for business dispute resulting in emotional and physical distress).
Advertising Injury:
  • Mez Industries, Inc. v. Pacific National Ins. Co., 76 Cal.App.4th 1267 (1999) (no duty to defend patent infringement inducement claims).
  • Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Superior Court (Watercloud Bed Co.), 19 Cal.App.4th 320 (1993) (no duty to defend patent infringement).
Worker’s Compensation and Employers Liability:
  • Culligan v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 81 Cal.App.4th  429 (2000).
  • HDH Corporation v. Atlantic Charter Insurance Company, 681  N.E.2d  847 (Mass. Supreme Ct. 1997).
  • La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co., 9 Cal.4th 27, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 100; 884 P.2d 1048 (Cal. 1994) (no duty to defend wrongful termination action).
Unfair Competition Act:
  • Community Assisting Recovery, Inc. v. Aegis Security Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 886 (2001) (no unlawful business practice).
  • Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 93 Cal.App.4th 700 (2001) (court may not override statutory authorization by declaring practice to be unfair)
Insurance Antitrust:
  • Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 113 S.Ct. 2891 (1993); Karlin v. Zalta, 154 Cal.App.3d 953 (1984).
  • Exhibitors’ Service, Inc. v. American Multi-Cinema, 583 F.Supp. 1186 (1984).
Regulatory Matters:
  • County of Los Angeles v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 132 Cal.App.3d 77 (1982) (territorial rating).
  • Associated California Loggers, Inc. v. Kinder, 110 Cal.App.3d 673 (1980) (antirebate laws).
Agency Disputes:
  • Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Mann, 124 Cal.App.3d 558 (1981)
Insurance Code Section 533:
  • Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co., 66 Cal.App.4th 478 (1998) (malicious prosecution).
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tankovich, 776 F.Supp. 1394 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (hate crimes).
  • J. C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M. K., 52 Cal.3d 1009 (1991) (child molestation).
Real Estate Fraud:
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 806 F.Supp. 1460 (N.D. Cal. 1992).
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hansten, 765 F.Supp. 614 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 743 F.Supp. 723 (N.D. Cal. 1990).
Landlord Package Policy:
  • American Empire Surplus Lines v. Bay Area Cab, 756 F.Supp. 1287 (1991).
Accident and Intentional Acts Issues:
  • Collin v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co., 21 Cal.App.4th 787 (1994) (the leading California case dealing with the definition of “occurrence” and the burden of proof on this issue).
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9163 (N.D. Cal. 1992).
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chaney, 804 F.Supp. 1219 (1992)
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Troelstrup, 789 P.2d 415 (Col. 1990).
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Talbot, 690 F.Supp. 886 (1988).
Choice of Law:
  • State Farm Mutual v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.4th 434 (2003) (internal affairs doctrine requires the application of Illinois law to determination of declaration of dividends).
Defamation:
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. LaPore, 762 F.Supp. 268 (1991).
ERISA:
  • Everhart v. Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Co., 275 F.3d 751 (2001) (limitation of standing to sue insurer).
  • Dodd v. John Hancock, 688 F.Supp. 564 (1988) (scope of ERISA preemption).
Tort Liability:
  • Peterson v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.4th 1185 (1995) (reversing earlier Supreme Court decision making landlord strictly liable for premises defect).
Policy Interpretation:
  • Rosen v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 30 Cal.4th 1070 (2003) (court prohibited from drawing upon public policy concerns to override clear policy language).        

Admitted to the Bar:

California

Organizations:

Chairman, Annual Fund Nueva School (1996-2000)

Publications:

BOOKS: 
  • Co-author, "Understanding Liability Insurance,” New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide (2007).
  • “California Insurance Law Handbook,” West Group (2005).
  • “DiMugno’s and Glad’s California Insurance Laws Annotated,” West Group (2006).
  • “Issuance of Insurance Policies,” Chapter 9, California Insurance Law & Practice, Mathew Bender (2005).
ARTICLES:
  • “Cyber-Risk: Are You Covered?”, Inside Litigation, Winter 2005.
  • “In Search of Coverage in Cyberspace:  Why the General Liability Policy Fails to Insure Lost or Corrupted Computer Data”, 54 SMU L.Rev. 2055 (2001).
  • “Third Party Bad Faith: Storm Clouds on the Horizon”, 21 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 232 (May, 1999).
  • "Computing Coverage: Insurance Issues Arising Out of the Year 2000 Problem”, 20 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 164 (March, 1998).
  • “An Analysis of Security Officers Service, Inc. and Extension of Tort Remedies into the Workers’ Compensation System”, 19 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 233 (May, 1997).
  • “Bad Faith in the Absence of Coverage: The Insurer’s Prospective,” Recurring Issues in Insurance Disputes, 401 (1996).
  • “BMW of North America: Limitations on Punitive Damages Lotto,” Underwriters’ Rep. 14 (June 13, 1996).
  • “The Wake of Waller: Bad Faith Returns to its Contractual Roots”, 17 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 576 (December, 1995).
  • “Watercloud Dispels the Clouds Surrounding Insurance Coverage for Patent Infringement,” 16 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 173 (April, 1994).
  • “Use of Summary Judgment in Defense of Bad Faith Actions,” XXX, Tort & Ins. L. J. 49 (1994).
  • “Summary Judgment in Bad Faith Litigation Arising from Suspicious Claims”, For The Defense (November, 1994).
  • “The Impact of Deficient Investigation on Summary Judgment in First-Party Bad Faith Cases,” 9 Bad Faith Law Rep. 29 (March, 1993).
  • “Shedding Light on Extrinsic Evidence and the Interpretation of Insurance Contracts,” 15 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 330 (August, 1993).
  • “Failure to Settle Third-Party Claims as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:  An Old Wolf in New Clothes,” 8 Bad Faith Law Rep. 1 (February, 1992).
  • “Bank of the West: A Triumph of Common Sense,” Underwriters’ Rep. 8 (August 20, 1992).
  • “Bad Faith Liability in the Absence of Coverage?” 7 Bad Faith Law Rep. 1 (February, 1991).
  • “California Supreme Court: Looking Smarter Than Ever with J.C. Penney,” Underwriters’ Rep. 20 (February 28, 1991).
  • “Coverage for Misrepresentation: A Review and Focus,” 13 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 333 (August, 1991).
  • “A Defense Perspective: The Surprising Fruits of Haslip - Enhanced Scrutiny of Punitive Damage Awards,” 7 Bad Faith Law Rep. 218 (November, 1991).
  • “Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Statutes and the Adjustment of Third-Party Claims,” 7 Bad Faith Law Rep. 237 (December, 1991).
  • “The Final Frontier: First Party Environmental Claims,” 12 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 3 (January, 1990).
  • “Claims Adjusters: Can the Wall Come Down?” Underwriters’ Rep. 16 (February 1, 1990).
  • “Insurance Coverage and Insanity: An Analysis of Intentional Acts,” 14 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 223 (May 1990).
  • “Homeowners Insurance: No Coverage for Misrepresentation,” 12 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 431 (November, 1990).
  • “Aids and Insurance: The Regulatory Response,” 11 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 27 (February, 1989).
  • “Garvey: Birth of the Predominant Cause Doctrine,” Underwriter’s Rep. 15 (April 13, 1989).
  • Is An Insurer a Fiduciary to Its Insureds? XXV, Tort & Ins. L.J. 1 (1989).
  • "Continuing Property Damage: The Pre-Manifestation Sequel,” Underwriters’ Rep. 16 (August 31,  1989).
  • “Fortuity: A Fundament of Coverage,” 11 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 402 (October, 1989).
  • “Royal Globe: The End of an Experiment Gone Awry,” Underwriters’ Rep. 6 (August 25, 1988).
  • “The Spandex Factor in Liability Policies: Stretching the Duty to Defend,” 10 Ins. Lit. Reptr. 258 (October, 1988).
  • “Health Care Delivery: New Solutions Bring New Problems,” 6 Ins. & Reinsurance Law Int’l 163 (November, 1988).
  • “Continuing Property Damage: The Manifestation Trigger,” Underwriters’ Rep. 22 (December 8, 1988).
  • “CERCLA Cleanup Costs Are Not Damages Within the Meaning of CGL Policies,” 6 Ins. and Reinsurance Law Int’l 115 (1988).
  • “Insurance Coverage for Toxic Perils; Judicial Rediscovery of Policy Language,” John Liner Rev. 3 (1987).
  • “The Insurance Redlining Dispute: A California Perspective,” Underwriters’ Rep. 22 (May 8, 1986).
  • Interpretation of Business Insurance Contracts,” 39 CPCU J. 110 (June, 1986).
  • “Fire Insurance Coverage for a Tenant’s Negligence: A Burning Issue,” Underwriters’ Rep. 18 (March 28, 1985).
  • “Interpretation of Insurance Contracts Within the Commercial Context:  Avoidance of the Contra - Insurer Rule,” Underwriters’ Rep. 12 (December 19, 1985).
  • “Antirebate Law, Standing and Judicial Review of Administrative Policymaking,” 1 J. of Ins. Reg. 123 (1982).
  • “The Evolving Doctrine of Wrongful Termination of Employment: Practical Consideration Regarding Employment and Insurance Agent Relationships,” 32 Ins. Fed. Q. 105 (1982).

William T. Barker is a partner in the Chicago office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, L.L.P., with a nationwide practice representing insurers in complex litigation, including matters relating to coverage, claims handling, sales practices, risk classification and selection, agent relationships, and regulatory matters. He is the co-author (with Ronald DF. Kent) of New Appleman Insurance Bad Faith Litigation, Second Edition,and author or co-author of chapters of New Appleman on Liability Insurance, Second Edition. He is also a member of the Editorial Board of the New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition and a Consulting Author of the New Appleman Insurance Law Practice Guide. He has published over 100 articles and speaks frequently on insurance and litigation subjects. He was a Contributing Editor and then Editor of Bad Faith Law Report until that publication merged with Insurance Litigation Reporter, where he is currently Senior Contributing Editor and Editorial Board Director. He has been described as the leading lawyer commentator on the connections between procedure and insurance. See Charles Silver & Kent Syverud, The Professional Responsibilities of Insurance Defense Lawyers, 45 Duke L.J. 255, 257 n.4 (1995). Mr. Barker is a member of the American Law Institute.

Access William Barker's' Martindale-Hubbell profile on martindale.com.


Michael Barnes is a litigation partner in the San Francisco office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, where he represents insurance companies in disputes involving first- and third-party coverage issues. He is a graduate of Duke Univeristy and the University of Michigan School of Law, and has participated in two dozen published decisions throughout the country. In addition to speaking and publishing articles on insurance law, Mr. Barnes serves on the Editorial Board of the Insurance Litigation Reporter and is a past chair of the Executive Committee of the Insurance Practice Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.  

Access Michael Barnes’ Martindale-Hubbell profile on www.martindale.com  


Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, regularly handles high-risk and complex matters for matters for financial and insurance industry clients. Staffed with seasoned litigators and former insurance regulators, Sonnenschein lawyers are relentless advocates for its clients’ interests.

For more than 70 years, Sonnenschein has partnered with insurance companies to understand their business and legal needs. Recent confirmation of Sonnenschein's outstanding insurance industry qualifications came in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. The 2008 edition identifies Sonnenschein as one of the top firms in the country representing insurers on their most complex matters. The Chambers description speaks for itself:

Considered “a go-to resource,” Sonnenschein has a major practice in this field. Insurance has been a priority of the firm for many years, and its competitors accept that it has fashioned itself into “a major competitor and a worthy opponent for anyone.” Commentators declare that “there is no insurance issue that it doesn’t have a wealth of experience in,” and praise it for its depth and reach. Its experts are to be found in California, Illinois and New York, but the firm offers a nationally integrated service, drawing upon specialized expertise and knowledge in its various offices as and when required. The lawyers themselves are “passionate, enthusiastic and edgy, constantly sparking ideas off each other.” According to clients, “the group has enough talented and experienced lawyers to handle numerous complex and large matters at any one time.”

When products are attacked, when lawsuits go national, when regulators join the fray, when reputations are on the line, leading businesses turn to Sonnenschein.

My Comments

No one has commented on Paul Glad, William T. Barker & Michael Barnes .