David Weinman has focused his practice on first party bad faith and business litigation. He began his career at Latham & Watkins, handling complex business, intellectual property and securities litigation. After leaving Latham he focused on bad faith litigation with expertise in representing major life, health and disability carriers. Since joining Robie & Matthai in 2005, he has concentrated on litigation of commercial insurance matters, complex coverage cases and legal malpractice actions arising out of complex litigation.

Favorite Cases

David served as part of the team which obtained summary judgment, upheld on appeal, in Hill vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2008), 166 Cal.App.4th 1438, in which the Court held that policyholders in a mutual insurance company did not have a right to payment of dividends. In this nationwide class action, fifty million present and former policyholders contended that, during the class period from 1983 through 1998, State Farm had breached a duty to pay billions of dollars in dividends, and, as a result, created an excessive surplus. In applying the Illinois Business Judgment Rule, the Court determined that it could not consider the merits of the Board's decisions on dividend payment; the Court could only consider the decision-making process to ensure that it was not tainted by fraud, oppression, or illegality. The Court also held that the policyholders were not entitled to an accounting because the breach of contract claim was precluded by the Business Judgment Rule and the covenant claim was not an independent cause of action under Illinois law; the company did not commit an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice under the Unfair Competition Act.

The Court concluded, "The fact that a corporation has earned profits out of which Directors might lawfully declare a dividend. . . is insufficient alone to justify judicial intervention compelling a declaration and payment." "[H]aving had the benefit of the parties evidence on the issues, we conclude that the Board, not the courts, should be left to run the company."

Plaintiff, J.T. Frames, settled with a State Farm insured for $19,520,000 on behalf of a class defined as "all persons to whom the defendant had sent advertising faxes during the period of April 2, 2003 to January 30, 2007 without the recipient's prior express permission or invitation." An Illinois court certified the class and approved the settlement agreement, which assigned the rights of the defendant under its State Farm insurance policies to the class. David filed a declaratory relief action in California, defeated J.T. Frame's motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction, and on cross-motions for summary judgment, defeated the claims of the class. The Court of Appeal affirmed (State Farm General Ins. Co. v. J.T. Frames (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 429), holding that the insured's coverage for advertising injury was not applicable because the content of the faxes was not injurious. The property damage coverage did not apply since the faxes were not sent by accident.

In Aho Enterprises v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14373), the District Court dismissed a body shop's claims for breach of implied contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair business practices under Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code, alleging an "unlawful pattern and practice of unreasonably and unlawfully failing to pay reasonable repair and storage fees." Although the compensatory damages were limited, the inclusion of a prayer for punitive damages allowed removal to the Federal Court for the Northern District of California. Although the compensatory damages were limited, an adverse judgment could have triggered significant liability on similar claims. The Court granted David's motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(B)(6). In the critical portion of the ruling, the Court held that plaintiff had no standing to assert an unfair competition claim under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, rejecting the contrary ruling made by another District Court.

The policyholder had a multimillion dollar tower of directors and officers' liability coverage. The directors and officers were named in multiple shareholder class actions and derivative lawsuits arising out of backdating and improperly accounting for various stock options over a period of seven years. The shareholder litigation sought damages and restitution from the director defendants for their ill-gotten gains; the litigation was settled for $19 Million and an assignment of rights under the insurance coverage. David obtained summary judgment on the grounds that the insured had improperly entered the settlement, had failed to cooperate with the carrier's reasonable demands for information, and that the clear and unambiguous language of the policy provided that it did not provide coverage for "any amount for which an insured person is absolved from payment by reason of any covenant, agreement or court order." David successfully argued that the settlement itself was entitled to no weight, since it did not represent the true liability of the insured.

Memberships

• Los Angeles County Bar Association
• State Bar of California
• Association of Southern California Defense Counsel

Education

• University of California at Los Angeles, J.D.
  • Phi Beta Kappa, 1989
• Judicial Extern to Federal District Court Judge Irving Hill
• Duke University, A.B., summa cum laude, 1984

Admissions

• California, 1989
• U.S District Court: Northern, 1998, Southern, 2000 and Central, 1989