Blog
A Legal Blog About California Law and Recent Developments at the Pedigo Law Corporation.

Legal eagle for 2010

The OC Metro magazine (August 2010) has named attorney Brian Pedigo a “legal eagle” for 2010. OC Metro used metrics from Avvo, a national organization that rates attorneys based on a mathematical model that evaluates years in practice, disciplinary history, professional achievements and industry recognition. OC Metro then listed the top five attorneys in 19 specialties, …

Read More

Brian Pedigo serves as a juror in a murder trial

For more information about Brian Pedigo’s experience serving as a juror, click here.

Read More

California law says animals are property

In the state of California, animals are considered “mere property” or chattel. This means that if someone maims or kills your pet dog, cat, or other animal, the traditional measure of damages in civil court is the replacement value (or street value) of the animal. Our office received a case in which a reckless driver …

Read More

Brian Pedigo Selected as one of Orange County’s Top 95 Lawyers by OC Metro

Attorney Brian Pedigo was selected as one of Orange County’s Top 95 Lawyers by OC Metro Magazine in its August 2009 edition. For this special issue, OC METRO looked at the top lawyers based on the Avvo rankings in 19 different legal categories. The Avvo rating is an evaluation of a lawyer’s background, calculated using a …

Read More

Attorney Brian Pedigo sucessfully defends another fraud case brought in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding

The United States District Court, Central District of California, in case number 6:08-ap-01384-PC, filed and entered its decision to dismiss a lawsuit against the defendants.  Brian Pedigo, attorney of record for the defendants, filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) (FRCP 12 is incorporated by reference by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure) on …

Read More

Insurance Company Reverses its Denial of its Insureds’ Claim

The potential plaintiff in this case (“owner”), was storing his property in a rental storage unit.  The owner’s property was destroyed when the storage facility removed the flooding controls to the unit, it rained, and the rain destroyed the property with water damage. Insurance company denied owner’s claim for reimbursement due to an exclusion in …

Read More

Settlement Reached in Breach of Contract / Fraud Case on Behalf of Former Independent Contractor

During a court-sponsored mediation, attorney Brian Pedigo helped bring about a settlement in excess of the contract amount promised to plaintiff, an ex-independent contractor for defendant. Plaintiff hired Pedigo to bring a lawsuit for unpaid money earned on a very large mechanical project. Defendant had refused to pay Plaintiff, but after a deposition, several interrogatories, …

Read More

Successful defense of fraud claims brought to trial in bankruptcy adversary proceeding

After a two-day bench trial, in the United States District Court, Central District of California, case no. RS 08-01222 MJ , Attorney Brian Pedigo sucessfully defended his clients accused of fraud in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The main legal argument was that there was an express condition precedent to the agreement at issue, and that condition …

Read More

A Settlement Negotiation with an Insured’s Own Homeowners Insurance Policy Produces a Desired Result

The potential plaintiff in this case, a homeowner, contacted attorney Brian Pedigo when the owner’s homeowner’s insurance company denied a claim for reimbursement. According to owner, the insurance company told him one thing over the phone (“the loss is covered and will be reimbursed”) only to later completely change positions on the reimbursement — and …

Read More

E-Mail us

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message

Client Testimonial

Brian, thank you for all the help you have provided us in obtaining payment for our recently filed home owners claim.

I wanted to be sure the $7,150.00 sewer connection repair cost would be covered by our home owner’s policy before authorizing a plumbing company to make the repair. So before giving the plumber approval to make the repair, I called my insurance agent to review our home owner’s policy coverage. He was not in the office and only he is allowed to discuss policy coverage with clients. So I then contacted the insurance carrier’s customer service desk and eventually was connected with a customer representative who claimed to be an expert regarding home owner insurance policy coverage. I gave him my policy number and explained the nature of the repair and asked if the repair cost was covered by our home owner’s policy. He responded that as long as the plant roots which caused the sewer connection to break originated on our property, the cost of the repair would be covered. To be sure, I asked several times and was told that he had recently handled three other similar claims and all had been covered.

Prior to terminating the call, the customer service agent connected us to the carrier’s claim desk and stayed on the line while we filed the claim. The sewer connection breakage occurred in April of 2008. After several months of calls to our insurance agent requesting the status of the claim, the insurance carrier denied the claim, stating the sewer connection was not part of the dwelling and therefore not covered by our home owner’s insurance policy. I then contacted the California State Insurance Commissioner’s office requesting they investigate the claim. The Insurance Commissioner’s enquiry resulted in the insurance carrier confirming their denial of the claim based on the fact that the policy “clearly states” only damage to the dwelling is covered. I received a follow up letter from the Insurance Commissioner’s office indicating that they could do nothing more to assist us with our appeal, but that we were free to seek legal counsel.

As you would expect, I was very frustrated that the insurance carrier would not live up to the commitment their customer service representative had made in April regarding coverage of the sewer connection repair when I contacted your office in early November. Your recommendation was to send the insurance carrier a demand letter restating the facts of the case as well as indicating it was our intention to follow up with a lawsuit if they did not honor the promise the customer service agent had made during the phone conversation in April. I was impressed by your immediate attention to the problem as well as the simplicity of the solution. I was further impressed when I received the draft of the demand letter. Rather than being filled with a lot of what I call “boiler plate clauses” it stated the relevant points of our case along with the supporting contractual law elements that would be the basis of our follow on law suit should we need to take that step. Further more the points of the demand letter were written in clear layman’s terms and very easily understood by some one without a law degree. The demand letter was sent in mid-November indicating the insurance carrier had until December 31st to respond. Although they requested an extension to January 15th, we received their response on January 3rd. Although they contend that the sewer connection repair is not covered by our home owner’s policy, they agreed to reimburse us the full $7,150.00 it cost us to repair the sewer connection as a compromise for being long time customers.

Although this case did not represent a large amount of income for your practice, you followed up relentlessly with the insurance carrier and either called or sent emails immediately after any communication you had with them. Additionally, you provided a complete packet of documents as well as presentation points I should use had we found it necessary to file in small claims court. It is clear from these actions that you go the extra mile with passion for your client’s situations and are looking out for their best interests.

Thank you again for all you have done. In the event I or any of my friends ever need legal representation in the future, I will definitely recommend you and your practice to them
— D.C., Orange County, CA

Disclaimer

These testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.