News & Events

Welcome to Sinnott, Puebla, Campagne & Curet, APLC

Below are some recent legal and personal accomplishments of attorneys at Sinnott, Puebla, Campagne & Curet APLC.

• On May 31, 2011, J. Karren Baker obtained a favorable ruling on summary judgment in Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., et al., (Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Case No. 97-3323-08GWBC).  In Del Monte Fresh, American Home Assurance Company defended the putative insured under a reservation of rights for ten years.  The Hawaii Supreme Court, in a 2007 ruling, determined that Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. was not an insured under the policies. American Home sought to recoup approximately $2 million it had expended in defense of Del Monte Fresh in connection with the cleanup of the Oahu Plantation.  The court agreed that American Home was entitled to recoupment of the defense costs, and also awarded pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.  


• In June of 2010, Randy M. Marmor was named as Alameda's "Volunteer of the Year" by Alameda Little League for his volunteer work as Vice President of Little League and President of Alameda Youth Basketball, including coaching teams in both leagues and serving as a referee and umpire.


• On March 25, 2010, W. David Campagne and Karren J. Baker obtained a favorable ruling on summary judgment in Western Refining Southwest, Inc., et al .v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., et al., (Superior Court for the County of Maricopa, Arizona, Case No. CV2008-007299). In Western Refining, AISLIC issued a policy with a named insured provision that included "subsidiaries, affiliates, successor or assigns, including such components [sic] hereafter acquired or formed." It was undisputed that the entity seeking coverage was formed in 2002 and that the one-year policy was issued in 1998. The insured argued that the "hereafter acquired or formed" language extended indefinitely into future.  AISLIC countered that the "hereafter" language extended only until the termination of the policy. The court agreed with AISLIC, holding "common sense and the obvious intendment of the policy taken as a whole" support the interpretation that the policy language is limited by the policy period: "The 'hereafter' language cannot be construed to create a potential indefinite future obligation to insured created potentially decades after the policy term expires."


• On March 12, 2010, W. David Campagne and Karren J. Baker obtained a favorable ruling on summary judgment in Golden Hills Sanitation Co., et al. v. American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co., (Superior Court for the County of Kern, California, Case No. S-1500-CV-263575). In Golden Hills, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company ("AISLIC") issued two consecutive Commercial General Liability and Pollution Legal Liability policies to an insured that operated a wastewater treatment facility which discharged treated effluent into a golf course lake on adjoining property. The owner of the lake sued, alleging that the wastewater was improperly treated, causing a noxious odor and adversely impacting the lake.   The complaint alleged that the insured had discharged effluent from a constructed pipeline into the lake for 20 years.  The insuring agreement in the AISLIC policies provided coverage for third party property damage caused by pollution conditions on or under the insured property which migrated beyond the boundaries of the insured property.  AISLIC argued that the intentional transportation of the effluent from the insured property into the lake was not "migration" for purposes of the insuring agreement.  The court agreed, granting summary judgment on all counts.


• On January 20, 2010, Randy P. Sinnott'sand Gail L. Orr's hard work resulted in a favorable Court of Appeal ruling in Forecast Homes, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Company (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1466.  In Forecast, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District) upheld the trial court's order granting summary judgment on application of Steadfast Insurance Company's self-insured retention ("SIR"), specifying that the named insured must satisfy the SIR under the Steadfast SIR form as a condition precedent to coverage.


• Since the Forecast decision was issued, Sinnott, Puebla, Campagne & Curet has obtained the dismissal of numerous contribution cases against Steadfast utilizing the Forecast holding, and Forecast has formed the basis for other successful trial court decisions on application of Steadfast's SIR. These successes include the trial court granting summary judgment on June 10, 2010, in a motion filed by JoLynn M. Pollard and Robert A. Sander in C.R. Schrieber Construction v. First Specialty Insurance Company, et al. (Superior Court for the County of San Diego, California, Case No. 37-2009-00084154), and the dismissal obtained by JoLynn M. Pollard and Michael J. Bartlett on July 29, 2010, in Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. Steadfast Insurance Company (United States District Court Case for the Central District of California, Case No. EDCV 10-00267).