In the news
Santa Barbara, California
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED ON BEHALF OF BAR AND RESTURANT OWNERS WITH REGARD TO LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICIES
The California Department of Insurance, the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are currently investigating an alleged fraud involving the sale of insurance policies to approximately 300 to 400 bar and restaurant owners throughout the State of California.
A class action lawsuit was filed by Foley & Bezek, LLP with the Santa Barbara Superior Court on November 5, 2003 on behalf of all bar and restaurant owners who purchased allegedly fraudulent polices of liability insurance purportedly issued by Lloyd’s of London. A scanned copy (in Adobe Acrobat format) of the class action complaint filed on November 5, 2003 with the Santa Barbara Superior Court can be viewed by clicking on the link above.
Lloyd’s is currently in the process of notifying bar and restaurant owners that policies of liability insurance that were purportedly issued by Lloyd’s through United Restaurant Insurance Services, Inc., Heritage Agency, and Ian Stewart apparently were not authorized, and do not provide any insurance coverage. As a result, bar owners are scrambling to obtain replacement insurance policies.
The class action lawsuit seeks to obtain the recovery of all premiums paid by bar and restaurant owners for the allegedly fraudulent insurance policies. The named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits are James Fletcher, the owner of “Jimboz” Lounge in Santa Barbara, and Mike Bustanchury, the owner of “Tiburon Tavern” in Santa Barbara.
William Meader, Senior Investigator for the California Department of Insurance, had advised Foley & Bezek, LLP that based on the current investigation, it appears that between 300 and 400 insurance policies were issued to bar and restaurant owners throughout the State of California. Mr. Meader is also attempting to determine whether bar owners in other states are involved, and for how many years the fraudulent policies have been issued.
Lloyd’s of London’s California attorney, Dean Hansell of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, has advised Tom Foley at Foley & Bezek, LLP that Lloyd’s is actively cooperating with the investigations being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York, the FBI, and the California Department of Insurance.
Annual premiums for the fraudulent policies ranged between ,335.00 and ,000, depending on the size of the bars and restaurants involved.
December 19, 1996 article in the Los Angeles Times by Doug Smith, about a lawsuit filed in Burbank Superior Court alleging Lockheed Martin failing to informing people living near the former B-1 bomber construction plant that it was discharging chromium 6, a known carcinogen.
Roger N. Behle Jr., a partner at Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP, offers his comments on the Mattel Inc. and MGA Entertainment, Inc. litigation over MGA’s Bratz dolls, in an article written by Matthew Blake of the Daily Journal.
Local businesses declared victims of fraudulent scheme
Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP, on behalf of two local business owners brought a class action lawsuit for numerous Southern California bars and restaurants alleging that they were sold fake liability insurance under the pretense that the policies were underwritten by Lloyd’s of London. Named Plaintiffs in the case were James Fletcher, owner of Jimboz, and Mike Bastanchury, owner of Tiburon Tavern. Plaintiffs were tipped off to the fraudulent scheme when they received a letter from Lloyd’s of London informing them that their policies were fake. The policies were issued on counterfeit “Lloyd’s of London” letterhead. While the insurance brokers were unaware that the policies were fake, they had a duty to ensure that the policies were legitimate, argued Plaintiffs’ attorneys. Defendants in the case included Brown & Brown of California, United Restaurant Insurance Services, and Richard Peterson.
After a lengthy litigation and several mediations, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge James W. Brown gave final approval of a settlement that called for distribution of $600,000 in settlement funds.
Several years ago, B&B Hardware, a fastener manufacturer and holder of a federally registered trademark, filed a trademark infringement case against a competing manufacturer. At trial, the jury found that B&B Hardware’s trademark was merely descriptive and had not acquired a secondary meaning, and therefore it was not entitled to protection. Judgment was entered against B&B Hardware.
Shortly thereafter, the competitor filed to register the same mark in its own name with the US Patent and Trademark Office. B&B Hardware hired Foley, Bezek, Behle & Curtis, LLP, who promptly went to work opposing the competitor’s application to register the mark. After a trial before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, FBB&C prevailed and the competitor was denied registration of the trademark. FBB&C then filed a new trademark infringement action against the competitor. The District Court initially dismissed the claim, stating that B&B Hardware had already had its day in court.
An appeal was taken to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a victorious turnaround, the Court of Appeals reversed dismissal vindicating FBB&C’s position and analysis. The Court held that because B&B Hardware’s mark had become incontestable, it could no longer be challenged for mere descriptiveness. With its claims resurrected, B&B Hardware is now positioned to obtain profits and damages from the competing manufacturer whose sales of infringing products exceed $25,000,000.
LET’S START NOW
We want to hear your case and guide you
through a winning result.