Sarah Long represents clients in all aspects of Insurance Coverage & Litigation and Construction Defect Claims & Litigation.

Sarah has proven to be an asset in complex civil litigation, including representing many of the nation’s builders in construction defect actions and bad faith insurance coverage disputes. Her remarkable understanding and management of additional insured files have not only proven invaluable for her clients, but have also led to a published decision by the California Court of Appeal and a successful appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Known for her dependability, efficiency, and creative problem-solving, Sarah always strives to secure the best results for her clients in the most efficient manner. She is a loyal advocate who maintains positive working relationships with opposing counsel and carriers. Whether it’s stepping up to assist clients or supporting her colleagues, Sarah consistently demonstrates her commitment to excellence.


Sarah earned her Juris Doctor from California Western School of Law in December 2006, where she ranked among the top 30 percent of her class and served as a Junior Board Member of the Women’s Law Caucus. Prior to that, she graduated from the University of California, Santa Barbara in June 2004 with a Bachelor of Arts in Law and Society, accompanied by a Minor in Anthropology.

Outside of the office, Sarah is a dynamic individual with a love for CrossFit, literature, golf, and culinary exploration. Embracing the vibrant San Diego lifestyle with her husband, Ryan, Sarah also shares her home with two adorable cats.

Representative Matters

  • Played an integral role in the litigation resulting in the published opinion, Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1086, invalidating an additional insured’s wrongful coverage positions and imposing punitive damages, and instead confirming its duty to defend its additional insured homebuilders in construction defect actions.
  • Defeated the carrier’s attempt to circumvent the California published decision, when that carrier then enforced its Georgia choice of law provision, arguing the same non-coverage positions. Years of hard-fought litigation, including multiple motions for summary judgment and a decision from the Ninth Circuit, resulted in further confirmation that TIG Insurance Company (fka American Safety Indemnity Company) had a duty to defend its additional insured homebuilder in construction defect actions under purported “ongoing operations” endorsements. There are now rulings against the recalcitrant carrier under both California and Georgia law with regard to its wrongful interpretation and application of its additional insured endorsements. [Ninth Circuit Memorandum: Pulte Home Corp. v. TIG Insurance Co. (2019) No. 18-55792]
  • Succeeded on a motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration for a general contractor client based on the California Supreme Court’s holdings in Privette v. Superior Court and its progeny, holding that the general contractor is not responsible for a subcontractor’s employee’s injuries because responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety had been delegated to and assumed by his employer, an independent contractor.