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.


No firm in California can match our experience handling appeals involving large punitive damages awards. We regularly succeed in vacating or sharply reducing punitive damages awards on appeal—in the last twenty years, we have won reversal of 95 cents of every dollar of punitive damages assessed against our clients.

Our successes in this area include some of the largest and most highly publicized punitive damages awards in California history. (E.g., Lockheed Litigation Cases [$380 million award reversed]; Argo v. General Dynamics [$99.3 million award reversed]; Coppola v. Warner Bros. [$60 million award reversed].)

As part of our punitive damages practice, our attorneys closely monitor the latest developments in this area and provide opinion and commentary through our blog, California Punitive Damages.

Contact Curt Cutting for more information about our Punitive Damages practice.

Oak Park Unified School District v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.

Ninth Circuit affirms summary judgment for Horvitz & Levy’s client in insurance bad faith action

Read More

Putt v. Ford Motor Co.

Court of Appeal reverses multimillion dollar jury verdict finding Ford 100% at fault in an asbestos case

Read More

Jarecki v. Zitter

Trial court grants post-trial relief in nuisance and trespass case, slashing damages by more than 70 percent

Read More

Curry v. Academy Pointe, Inc.

California Court of Appeal reduces $4.5 million punitive damages award to $750,000 in reasonable accommodation case against apartment owner and manager

Read More

Victaulic v. American Home Assurance Company

Court of Appeal reverses $52 million Brandt fee and punitive damages award in insurance bad faith case.

Read More

Monje v. Spin Master Inc.

Ninth Circuit affirms trial court’s rulings striking punitive damages and excluding speculative expert toxicological causation opinions in product liability case involving children’s toy

Read More

Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal

California Court of Appeal reverses $3.6 million in punitive damages in products liability case

Read More

Park v. Mobil Oil Guam, Inc.

Supreme Court of Guam affirmed reduction of punitive damages award against Mobil Oil

Read More

Cohen v. Sterling

Court of Appeal upholds order granting new trial following $17 million verdict arising out of apartment building fire.

Read More

Mobasser v. Yermian

California Court of Appeal vacates jury’s award of emotional distress damages and punitive damages in family business dispute.

Read More

Heston v. Taser

Ninth Circuit affirms district court’s reduction of damages award and orders further reduction, leaving defendant responsible for only $150,000 of original $7.6 million award.

Read More

Huitt v. Southern California Gas Company

California Court of Appeal reverses $12.6 million judgment, including $10 million in punitive damages, and directs entry of judgment for defendant in failure-to-warn case.

Read More

Griffin Dewatering Corp. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York

California Court of Appeal reverses an $11 million judgment, including $10 million in punitive damages, and orders entry of judgment for the defendant in insurance bad faith case.

Read More

Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp.

California Court of Appeal reverses $5 million punitive damages award against Unocal in soil contamination case.

Read More

Walker v. Farmers Ins. Exchange

California Court of Appeal affirms trial court's reduction of punitive damages from $8.3 million to $1.5 million in insurance bad faith case.

Read More

Conservatorship of O.B.

California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that appellate courts should take the "clear and convincing evidence" standard into account when deciding whether sufficient evidence supports a finding governed by that standard.

Read More

Maddox v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. et al.

Kentucky Supreme Court brief arguing that punitive damages should not be permitted, as a general rule, against product manufacturers who comply with all applicable government safety requirements.

Read More

Bixby v. KBR, Inc.

Ninth Circuit amicus brief arguing that punitive damages cannot be imposed under state law to regulate conduct in a foreign nation.

Read More

Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., Inc.

California Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and others, arguing that an appellate court cannot affirm a punitive damages award based on an alleged "loss" that the Legislature has determined to be noncompensable.

Read More

Romo v. Ford Motor Co.

United States Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of twenty leading manufacturers in support of a petition for certiorari, arguing that punitive damages should not be awarded against a manufacturer for conduct that complies with regulatory standards and industry custom.

Read More

State Farm v. Campbell Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell

United States Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of a group of insurers, arguing that an insurer's gross assets or policyholders' surplus should not be a basis for affirming a punitive damages award.

Read More