Payne & Fears LLP offers a full range of business and litigation services to its clients in three primary practice groups: Labor and Employment, Business Litigation, and Insurance Coverage. Across these practice areas, we represent all types of clients, from multi-national corporations to emerging tech startups to individual insurance policyholders.
I hire Payne & Fears LLP because of certainty--certainty in my receipt of value, in its strategic approach to problem solving, in its integrity of billing, in its candor when evaluating my cases, in its creativity while searching for an economical and fair resolution and in its attorneys’ tenacity throughout the ensuing battle. In a world of unknowns, I value constancy in characteristics that matter most. Payne & Fears LLP delivers that constancy.
Your support at Payne and Fears is top rate and it is such a pleasure to work with someone who understands business and offers a conservative, yet aggressive approach – not very easy but something that you seem to demonstrate well! You are always my first choice of outside counsel.
The attorneys at Payne & Fears have the unique ability to size up complex matters and provide well-reasoned solutions. Their knowledge of the law and depth of experience, coupled with the responsive and personal service they provide, all contribute to a strong and valued relationship with our organization.
Payne & Fears LLP has represented me and my company for many years. It is an excellent law firm with the highest standards. I have worked with hundreds of attorneys in my career. I get results with Payne & Fears LLP.
I have had nothing but great experiences with Payne & Fears. The attorneys are knowledgeable and efficient.
With over 35 years of in-house counsel and executive operations experience, I have worked with many law firms throughout the U.S. Payne & Fears is at the top of my list of law firms for handling commercial litigation and employment law matters on the West Coast based upon the highest level of competence, responsiveness and cost-effectiveness that has been delivered. They also stand apart with the highest ethical standards and, might I add, a not often seen virtue of humility among their partners.
Payne & Fears (P&F) achieved a significant victory on behalf of a commercial contractor by securing full defense and indemnity under a commercial general liability policy for an arbitration after the insurer had denied coverage twice previously.
P&F partners Jared De Jong and Kelby Van Patten were retained on the eve of trial to evaluate insurance coverage by the client. Even though the insurer strenuously denied the existence of a duty to defend, P&F, through creative and comprehensive arguments, was able to convince the carrier that coverage existed and the risks to the carrier in refusing to defend were enormous. The carrier agreed to appoint independent counsel on the first day of trial and quickly moved to settle the case, paying 100 percent of the settlement. The settlement avoided a prolonged trial and allowed the client to return to its core business.
In an insurance recovery case being handled by Payne & Fears partners Scott Thomas and Sarah Odia, an Arizona federal court, applying Nevada law, recently held that NGM Insurance Company breached its duty to defend its additional-insured homebuilder by refusing to pay more than a proportionate share of the builder’s defense costs based on what NGM called a “defense-follows-indemnity” formula.
The court rejected NGM’s argument that its duty to defend required it to pay only a small fraction of the builder’s defense costs proportionate to its named insured’s relatively small role in the homeowners’ overall damages; the court correctly applied Nevada law to the effect that if an insurer has a duty to defend any part of a lawsuit, it has a duty to defend the entire lawsuit. This ruling puts to rest the ill-conceived notion that under Nevada law, insurers defending developers and homebuilders as additional insureds under policies issued to subcontractors can get away with anything less than fully defending their additional insureds.
The court also rejected NGM’s argument that the builder “failed to mitigate” its damages by not trying to shift NGM’s defense burden to other defending insurers. Instead, the court held that the builder is entitled to recover from NGM all of the builder’s reasonable defense costs and any consequential damages resulting from NGM’s breach – potentially including its litigation expenses in the recovery action.
The case is Centex Homes et al. v. NGM Insurance Co., case number 2:19-cv-01392, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (July 9, 2021 Order, ECF No. 195).