Results

Our twelve year old client was struck by a rock thrown by another youth, causing our client injuries, including a concussion and bruising. The insurance carrier attempted to claim there was no proof its insured threw the rock and attempted to blame other children in the vicinity. Our investigation demonstrated the insured was responsible. Using medical evidence, we established the severity of the injuries and persuaded the carrier to pay a six figure policy limit settlement without our insured having to file suit.

Our client, a minor, darted out in front of motor vehicle. The resulting collision resulted in devastating injuries. The police report attributed fault for the incident to our client. The client’s friends, who were with him, indicated to police that our client went into the street without looking and they too believed it was his fault. Our investigation, however, which included an accident reconstruction, led us to conclude that the driver of the motor vehicle had an opportunity to avoid the collision. We took the case and persuaded the insurance carrier to pay the 6 figure policy limits, without our insured having to file a lawsuit.

In a complex construction defect case involving a Los Angeles area school district, the district refused to pay our client, contending he was partially responsible for alleged construction defects on a massive building project. We demonstrated as a matter of law our client had no responsibility for the alleged defects. We prevailed on summary judgment and won compensation for our client — including all of his attorney fees and expenses.

We represented the homeowners in a complicated case involving defective and incomplete construction work performed by an unlicensed contractor. The case had many facets, including claims by workers the contractor failed to pay, the contractor’s wrongful assertion of a mechanic’s lien against our client, and a construction lender that refused to release loan proceeds. After less than a day of mediation, we resolved the matter by obtaining release of the mechanic’s lien, release of the construction proceeds and releases of the claims from the laborers.

Working with one of our business clients, we exposed a fraudulent insurance scam. A rogue insurance agent was accepting premiums for insurance policies but he never forwarded the premiums to the insurance company. As a consequence, no policies were issued. To cover his tracks, the agent generated phony certificates of insurance. In essence, he was betting that no claims would arise, there would be no need for insurance, and he could simply pocket the premiums. Our client discovered to her dismay she did not have coverage when she called to report a claim. We filed suit and recovered complete indemnity for our client and also recovered all of her fees and costs.

We often receive calls from homeowners who are surprised to learn of mechanic’s liens placed on their homes by people or businesses the homeowner has never heard of. These liens usually are asserted by those who have supplied a contractor with goods or services incorporated into the work. One of our clients was shocked to learn a lumber supplier was asserting a lien and threatening to foreclose on her home. She had paid the general contractor (more than the contractor had a right to collect) but the contractor failed to pay the supplier. We sued the contractor and within two months collected a refund sufficient to resolve the mechanic’s liens and recoup fees and costs of litigation. Tbe case is a reminder to every homeowner that they should, before signing any home improvement contract, consult an attorney. It is much more cost effective to consult with a lawyer at the beginning of a construction project than the end.

In a tragic case involving the death of a nine year old girl, Mr. Skorina teamed up with co-counsel to obtain a six figure settlement in a wrongful death action brought by the girl’s mother. The case highlights the dangers of swimming pools, especially those that are poorly designed. The little girl jumped onto a plastic pool cover and quickly became trapped in the cover as pool water rushed over the top of the cover. Expert witnesses opined the cover lacked adequate warnings and was inherently unsafe, as children (and parents) fail to appreciate the risk of jumping onto such covers.

The fitness industry has become increasingly competitive. In an effort to entice busy families to join, many advertise on-site child care. The sales pitch assures unsuspecting moms and dads that their kids will be safe and supervised while the parents use the gym facilities. A recent case indicates that isn’t necessarily true. Often the facilities are understaffed and children are allowed to play on structures and use devices that are not age appropriate. As a result, kids are getting injured. The centers then attempt to deny responsibility by hiding behind liability releases contained in membership agreements. Yes, after promising you that your child will be safe and supervised, the center will seek to renege on the promise by pointing out the fine print in the membership agreement. We recently defeated a defense motion for summary judgment on this issue and obtained a settlement for a 4-year-old who broke her arm in the child care facility of a well known fitness center chain. We are pleased to note the little girl in our case is doing fine and now will have a chunk of money for college. The message to parents, however, is that fitness centers are often not equipped to provide adequate and safe child care. Ask questions, ask to see the equipment they will be exposed to, ask about the credentials of the care providers, and use your good judgment.

Mr. Skorina obtained a judgment in excess of $480,000 in a case of assault and battery of an elderly taxi driver. The incident occurred when a disgruntled passenger refused to pay a fare. When our client followed the defendant into an establishment to report the matter, the defendant punched our client fracturing his left orbital bone and causing decreased vision.