Jeffrey S. Raskin

Corporate insureds also regularly seek Jeffrey’s counsel with procuring insurance. On behalf of clients, he audits insurance assets, structures commercial insurance programs, identifies potential legal issues, and helps clients negotiate more favorable policy terms.

He advises companies in the energy, chemical, entertainment, manufacturing, retail, banking, and financial services sectors.

Jeffrey has written on a variety of topics about insurance, as well as discovery of email in civil litigation. His most recent writings discuss the emerging fields of “cyber” insurance, with a particular focus on the types of first- and third-party coverages available to companies to protect themselves against the financial consequences resulting from various types of data breaches.

• One of the lead attorneys in several cases seeking recovery under contingent and possessed insurance policies for aircraft stranded in Russia following the start of the Ukraine conflict.
• Lead attorney in case seeking recovery under numerous directors and officers liability insurance policies for multi-hundred-million-dollar arbitration award.
• Lead attorney in case establishing the principal that excess liability insurance coverage in a continuous injury context attaches based on “vertical” and not “horizontal” exhaustion; SantaFe Braun, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 52 Cal.App.5th 19 (2020).
• Lead attorney in case establishing that the limitations period in an action against the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) begins to run when CIGA denies the claim and not when the claim is first submitted to CIGA. Snyder v. California Insurance Guarantee Association, 229 Cal.App.4th 1196 (2014).
• Lead attorney in a case seeking non-aggregated coverage for asbestos liabilities arising from insulation contracting activities. The insurers asserted throughout the 1990s that all of their coverage was "exhausted" and they no longer were required to defend or indemnify the insured against lawsuits that continued to be filed against the company. Based on our efforts, however, some of those insurers reinstituted their defense and indemnification of the insured in 2007. An entirely favorable 105-page decision following a 28-day bench trial was issued in May 2010, rejecting several of the insurers' defenses to coverage and the maintenance of the insured's declaratory relief lawsuit. Plant Insulation Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1872674 (Cal.Superior, May 5, 2010).
• Lead attorney at trial in an action establishing that umbrella insurer was required to pay defense costs "in addition to" the $30,000,000 in limits it agreed were available to pay the client's asbestos liabilities. Yarway Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-04-435399 (March 2, 2009).
• One of the attorneys in a coverage case for a large international investment bank under a run-off professional services liability insurance policy under which the bank sought recovery for hundreds of millions of dollars paid defending against and settling dozens of suits asserted against its predecessors-by-merger. Separate rounds of summary judgment were filed in 2009 and 2010. On the eve of trial, following extensive briefing and oral argument, all of the insurers in the case agreed to settle the case on terms favorable to the bank.
• Lead attorney in a case seeking coverage for a lawsuit alleging that the insured infringed the plaintiff's valuable trademarks. Although the insurer's policy contained an exclusion for actions asserting intellectual property claims, the court held that various allegations of the insured's alleged "bad faith" conduct constituted a covered claim for product disparagement. The insurer therefore was required to defend the lawsuit in full. Western Intern. Syndication Corp. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 2004 WL 5574357 (C.D.Cal., Nov. 8, 2004), aff'd., 222 Fed.Appx. 589 (9th Cir. (Cal.) Feb 26, 2007).
• Lead attorney in a case seeking coverage for substantial breast implant liabilities under several "claims made" commercial general liability insurance policies. The case also involved questions of corporate succession, and allegations of mutual mistake and reformation, each of which were decided in favor of the insured. Inamed Corp. v. Medmarc Cas. Ins. Co., 258 F.Supp.2d 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
• Lead attorney in a case applying California law over New Jersey law in dispute over the extent of coverage available to satisfy the insured's asbestos liabilities even though the court noted that the insured had "a strong corporate presence in New Jersey during a period in which the insurance companies provided coverage." Conair Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., San Francisco Superior Court Case No: CGC-02-414956 (September 29, 2006).
• One of the lead attorneys in a multi-jurisdictional, multifaceted and multi-dimensional series of lawsuits seeking to obtain insurance coverage for tens of thousands of asbestos and silica lawsuits filed nationwide against the subsidiaries of a Fortune 500 company.
• The lead attorney in several lawsuits on behalf of product and equipment manufacturers seeking insurance coverage for substantial asbestos liabilities.