Richard D. Bremer

Richard D. Bremer specializes in representing insurers in complex, multi-party coverage litigation, with emphasis on environmental and toxic tort matters. In addition, he represents clients in contractual and extracontractual disputes, and has undertaken numerous coverage and exposure analyses. Mr. Bremer has significant appellate experience, as well as experience in general business and civil litigation, as well as estate planning. Mr. Bremer has handled various types of coverage cases, including cases involving claims of defective products, sexual harassment, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. He has undertaken policy analysis and has provided coverage opinions in a wide variety of factual scenarios. Mr. Bremer has been published several times, including Rios v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1020 (holding that insurance broker was not an agent of insurer and that his mistake could not be imputed to insurer or surplus lines broker), and Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.4th 1131 (holding that a mediator did not have statutory authority to issue orders with binding findings of fact without consent of parties). Mr. Bremer attended the University of California at Riverside, where he earned an interdisciplinary Bachelor of Arts degree. He graduated cum laude and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa and the Golden Key National Honors Society. Mr. Bremer continued his education at Riverside, earning a Masters degree in Business Administration with a focus on product and brand development. He earned his Juris Doctor degree from Pepperdine University, where he again graduated cum laude. Mr. Bremer is admitted to practice before all California state courts as well as the Central District of the United States District Court. Representative Matters Insurance • Represented insurer of a local Diocese in connection with numerous molestation claims arising from temporary lifting of statute of limitations. Provided a comprehensive coverage analysis, created a resolution strategy, and played a key role in negotiating $100 million global settlement between Diocese, insurers, and claimants. • In response to insured's tender of complaint for cost recovery relating to soil and groundwater contamination allegedly arising out of insured's transportation and disposal of hazardous waste, analyzed the applicability of the carrier's pollution exclusion, determined whether an public liability endorsement provided coverage, and addressed other coverage issues. • Provided insurer with analysis of coverage issues relating to the application of pollution exclusions under U.S. Virgin Islands law and application to insured's tender of EPA action letter. • In connection with an insured's renewed claim for coverage for environmental contamination after a nine year lapse in communications with insurer group, investigated an alleged prior agreement between the insured and the insurer group, coordinated the joint defense group, and provided a comprehensive coverage analysis that analyzed issues relating to corporate successorship, assignment of policy benefits, applicability of voluntary payments and lack of notice provisions. Based on the results of the coverage analysis, a strategy was formulated for resolving the matter to the benefit of all parties involved. • Represented four excess insurers at varying attachment points in an asbestos claim coverage litigation involving complex allocation issues relating to unaggregated primary policies, stacking of underlying policy limits, and exhaustion of underlying coverage. • Represented multiple insurers in a lengthy, complex environmental insurance coverage litigation, where an insured oil company sought coverage for the clean-up of its refineries, oil fields and gas stations across America for pollution caused by the company over the years. The insurers conducted extensive depositions of site witnesses, experts, and environmental consultants, and successfully obtained rulings against the oil company barring recovery for: (1) the oil company's pre-tender costs; (2) the oil company's claims that did not involve an actual lawsuit; (3) policies containing an absolute pollution exclusion; and (4) policies containing a "sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion. The insurers then prepared for trial on whether there was any covered property damage during the policy period at an oil field on the Central Coast of California and whether the oil company "expected or intended" such damage. • Represented two insurers in connection with policyholder's claim in excess of $40 million for coverage for contamination arising from dry cleaning operations, providing an analysis of the insured's settlement demand and preparing a strategy for resolving the matter either by settlement or voluntary dismissal. Published Cases Insurance • Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. Selman Breitman represented Commercial Union in a landmark declaratory relief action involving lost policy issues. The Dart decision set forth the groundwork for the standard required to prove the terms of a lost insurance policy or other document or instrument. The Dart court ruled that the terms of a lost document can be proved through secondary evidence establishing the document's substance, but that the contents of the documents need not be proved verbatim. Litigation • Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Superior Court Selman Breitman represented one of several insurers of the Diocese of Orange. In an action related to clergy molestation claims, the court appointed a settlement judge. The settlement judge convened a hearing and issued an order that purported to determine the good faith settlement value of the cases, preclude the insurers from declaring a forfeiture of coverage should the diocese settle without their consent, and provide evidence of the insurers' bad faith for future use. The court of appeal granted insurers' writ petition and vacated the order, holding that without the parties' consent a mediator did not have authority to issue orders with binding findings of fact. • Rios v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. The Court of Appeal upheld Summary Judgment against the insured in this matter. The insured's application had requested a "Special Form" property policy. Scottsdale Insurance Company, however, offered Basic Form policy instead, which the insured's broker accepted. Later, an uncovered theft loss occurred, and Scottsdale disclaimed. In the following lawsuit, the insured contended that her application sought theft coverage, and that her broker represented that she had obtained a Special Form policy. The Court determined that the application was merely an offer of coverage, and that the quote by Scottsdale for Basic Form was a counter offer, which was ultimately accepted by both the insured and her broker. Further, the mistakes made by the insured's own broker could not be attributable to the insurance company as a matter of law. As a result, there was no valid cause of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation or fraud. • Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. Selman Breitman represented Commercial Union in a landmark declaratory relief action involving lost policy issues. The Dart decision set forth the groundwork for the standard required to prove the terms of a lost insurance policy or other document or instrument. The Dart court ruled that the terms of a lost document can be proved through secondary evidence establishing the document's substance, but that the contents of the documents need not be proved verbatim.

• Associate

• California, 1998
• U.S. District Court Central District of California