Burglarized business sues insurer for bad faith. $542K. Los Angeles County.

Summary

Insurer won't pay when its insured says eyewear was stolen in a burglary.

The Case

Case Name: AGA & Titan Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company
Court and Case Number: United States District Court, Central District of California / 2:20-cv-02698-MCS-AS
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, June 07, 2022
Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, February 05, 2020
Type of Action: Insurance – Bad Faith, Claims Handling
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Mark C. Scarsi
Plaintiffs:
AGA & Titan Inc.
Defendants:
United Specialty Insurance Company
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

Gross Verdict or Award: $542,599.50
Trial or Arbitration Time: 4 days
Jury Deliberation Time: 1 day

The Attorneys

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Foster, Sultanyan & Euredjian, LLP by David R. Euredjian, North Hollywood.
Law Offices of Richard M. Foster by Richard M. Foster and Alec G. Bedrossian, North Hollywood.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Woolls Peer Dollinger & Scher by Gregory B. Scher and Katy A. Nelson, Los Angeles.

Facts and Background

Facts and Background:
On September 9, 2016, plaintiff AGA & Titan Inc. suffered a burglary loss at its premises in Burbank. Plaintiff claimed that the burglars stole more than $800,000 worth of eyewear from the premises.
Plaintiff submitted a claim to its insurance carrier. After a lengthy investigation, defendant insurer United Specialty Insurance Company denied plaintiff's claim, contending that plaintiff's documents were unreliable such that no losses could be calculated; further that plaintiff failed to cooperate in its investigation.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
Plaintiff contended that its premises was burglarized and that more than $800,000 in inventory was stolen and that defendant insurer acted in bad faith in denying the claim.
Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant claimed that plaintiff's records were unreliable, such that the losses could not be calculated. Defendant also denied there was a burglary. Defendant presented two affirmative defenses: (1) Termination of Insurance Policy for Fraudulent Claim; and (2) Failure to Cooperate.

Print this Verdict

Disclaimer

This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.