Related Case Studies

Print to PDF Print to PDF

Enrique Marinez - Representative Experience

  • Issues
  • Venue
  • Client Type
  • Practice Areas
  • Full Description
  • Result
  • Tenant's Purchase Options; Commercial Real Estate; Right of First Refusal
  • Alameda County Superior Court
  • Defendant Real Estate Broker and Agent
  • Real Estate
  • Represented a national commercial real estate broker and agent in connection with a dispute over the validity of a tenant’s attempt to exercise purchase options.


  • After vigorously pursuing the litigation for two and a half years, our high professional standards required us to withdraw from the matter due to a previously undisclosed conflict of interest between the broker and the agent. The matter settled less than a month later.

  • Rescission; Professional Liability; Bad Faith
  • USDC: Northern District of California
  • Defendant Insurance Provider
  • Bad FaithCoverageInsurance Services
  • Defended an insurance provider in a case involving claims for coverage under a Professional Liability General Partnership issued to a real estate development company. Three separate claims were brought against the insured. One claim was brought by a former partner arising out of certain lost partnership opportunities. The second claim was brought by the founder of the company for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud arising out of a prior settlement between the parties. The third claim arose out of the insured's development of an apartment complex and involved the parties' interests in the property as well as claims that the project was negligently built. The insurer denied coverage for all three claims on various grounds, including as to the first two claims that they were brought by "insureds" and were excluded by the insured v. insured exclusion, and as to the third claim based on the property damage exclusion. During discovery, it was learned that the insured were aware of the potential claim by the former partner before the policy was issued, and the insurer brought a counterclaim for rescission of the policy based on material misrepresentations.


  • Obtained summary judgment granting the insurer's claim for rescission based on material misrepresentation and breach of warranty in the application based on the insured's failure to disclose the dispute with the former partner. The court also granted our motion for summary judgment on the coverage issues, holding that even if the policy were enforced, no coverage existed and the denial was proper. The bad faith claim was dismissed as well. The case is reported at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20562 (N.D. Cal. 2005).