Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.


View Opinion View Opinion

In this Ninth Circuit appeal, Horvitz & Levy LLP successfully obtained a reversal of a judgment against an insurer.

The plaintiff, a transportation broker, suffered a loss when a person claiming to be a truck driver for a legitimate trucking company absconded with a truckload of computer monitors. The plaintiff tendered the loss to its insurer, Travelers Property and Casualty Company. Plaintiff’s insurance policy provided coverage for a loss incurred by a “carrier,” but also contained a carrier dishonesty endorsement which limited coverage for any dishonest act by a “carrier” to $50,000. Travelers tendered $50,000 to the plaintiff, which rejected the offer and filed suit in Oregon state court. Travelers removed the action to federal district court in Oregon.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the word “carrier” in the policy was ambiguous, and that the thief should be treated as a “carrier” for purposes of providing coverage. However, the district court also held that the thief was not a “carrier” for purposes of application of the carrier dishonesty endorsement. Thus, the district court awarded the plaintiff the full $300,000 in policy limits, unrestricted by the $50,000 limit contained in the carrier dishonest endorsement. The district court also awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees.

Travelers retained Horvitz & Levy to handle the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Travelers’ position on appeal and held that while the thief was a “carrier” for purposes of coverage, the thief was also a “carrier” for purposes of the carrier dishonesty endorsement. Thus, the court reversed the $300,000 judgment with directions to enter a new judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $50,000. The court also reversed the award of attorney’s fees.