Elisabeth M.D'Agostino

Representative Matters

Insurance

• Represents insurance companies in complex coverage matters involving well-known insureds and mass-tort claims spanning upwards of three decades.
• Represented an insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith arising out of the cancellation of an insurance policy by the insured's premium finance lender. 
• Represented an insurance company in an action filed by an insured seeking reformation of an insurance policy so as to provide coverage for the business personal property of an entity that was not an insured under the policy at the time of the loss.

Litigation

• Represented insurance company against insured’s claim that an answer could trigger a carrier’s duty to defend, where the insured sought millions in damages.  We successfully defeated the insured’s contentions, resulting in the Court’s decision that there was no duty to defend a boilerplate affirmative defense for offset.  Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. SACV141532DOCAJWX, 2015 WL 12765541, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2015).
• Represented insurance company that provided coverage to a landscaping subcontractor, and that was the only additional insured carrier providing the construction project's developer with a defense. On behalf of the insurance company, we sought reimbursement from the developer for all uncovered claims and contribution from other, non-participating additional insured carriers for the developer.
• Represented insurance company and its panel counsel against various causes of action, including breach of contract and bad faith, arising out of the alleged professional negligence of panel counsel.

Published Cases

• Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 509 F. App'x 591 (9th Cir. 2013): 

The firm prevailed on behalf of its client, Steadfast Insurance Company, in defeating an insured's claims of breach of contract and bad faith.  In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a  lower court's finding that Steadfast had no duty to defend an insured against claims that it was passing off its product as that of a competitor's.  The firm asserted that there was no express or implied disparagement alleged against the insured, such that there was no potential for coverage.  The opposing appellant-insured argued that its alleged reference to a study conducted by a competitor created the potential for implied disparagement, and therefore coverage.

The Ninth Circuit rejected appellants' strained arguments, finding that the allegations asserted against the insured did not constitute implied disparagement.  In its holding, the Ninth Circuit explained that allegations that the insured "passed off" its product to consumers do not involve false or misleading statements regarding the competitor's product.  Moreover, the advertisement neither mentioned the competitor or its product, nor suggest any superiority on the part of the insured's product.  Therefore, the Ninth Circuit found that coverage was appropriately denied.

In her leadership roles with Southwestern's Latino Law Students Association, Elisabeth coordinated the organization’s annual Hoover Toy Drive for underprivileged elementary school students in Los Angeles, for which she was recognized and received a scholarship from the Mexican American Bar Foundation. She currently volunteers at the Los Angeles Department of Animal Service's Harbor Animal Shelter.

Professional Associations and Memberships

• Defense Research Institute (DRI), Member 
• DRI Insurance Law Committee

Awards