Legal Opinion

Brandt v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided January 28, 1985No. L.A. 31859PublishedCited by 300 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KAUS, J.

When an insurer tortiously withholds benefits, are attorney’s fees, reasonably incurred to compel payment of the policy benefits, recoverable as an element of the damages resulting from such tortious conduct?1 We hold that they are and accordingly issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to reinstate the portion of the complaint seeking attorney’s fees as damages.

According to the complaint real party in interest Standard Insurance Company (Standard) issued a group disability income insurance policy to Vicom Associates, petitioner’s employer, under which petitioner was…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Gruenberg v. Aetna InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Comunale v. Traders & General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Crisci v. Security InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Neal v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by300 opinions

  1. Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. R & R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  4. Cassim v. Allstate InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2000

295 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API