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.

LEARN MORE ABOUT HORVITZ & LEVY
Robert H. Wright

Robert H. Wright

Partner - Los Angeles Office

How Robert Helps Clients

Large and middle-market corporations and public utilities leverage Robert Wright’s expertise in handling appeals and writs in matters of tort liability and damages, and products liability. He also has significant experience in employment issues and assumption of risk. Robert has presented over 30 arguments before the state and federal appellate courts, including arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and each of the districts of the California Court of Appeal.


Robert is a partner at the firm, where he has been practicing since 1999. He is one of the firm’s managing partners. On behalf of the Department of Legal Specialization, State Bar of California, he has prepared questions for the legal specialist exam in appellate law. He is also a California State Bar Certified Appellate Specialist.

Robert has been counsel of record in closely-watched cases raising issues of statewide importance, including recent cases addressing the lawfulness of exclusivity provisions in contracts between businesses (Quidel Corp. v. Superior Court (2019) __Cal.App.5th__) and the measure of damages for future medical care (Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 163).

Before joining the firm, Robert was a litigation associate with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he handled civil litigation, antitrust counseling, and appeals. Robert is a frequent contributor to state and national legal publications and a featured contributor to the Washington Legal Foundation on the issue of Mass Torts-Asbestos.

Representative Matters

Quidel Corp. v. Superior Court (2019)
California Court of Appeal reversed trial court that had applied a rule of per se invalidity to exclusivity provisions in contracts between businesses

Hake v. Allied Fluid Products Corp. (2018)
California Court of Appeal held that Kansas law governed the issue of causation and that plaintiff's "every exposure" theory did not satisfy the requirements of Kansas causation law

Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017)
California Court of Appeal reversed an award of $9.6 million for future medical expenses to permit evidence of Medicaid and Affordable Care Act benefits

Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013)
California Court of Appeal reversed damages awards of over $3 million and held that evidence of “billed” but unpaid medical expenses is not admissible to prove future medical damages or noneconomic damages

Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. (2011)
California Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal in a case construing California’s statute mandating dismissal of actions not brought to trial within five years, holding that only complete stays—those that bar all activity in a case—are “stays of prosecution” within the meaning of the statute

Collins v. Plant Insulation Co. (2010)
California Court of Appeal reversed a $2 million judgment on the ground the trial court did not allow the jury to allocate fault to a third party with sovereign immunity

Kelly v. CB & I Constructors, Inc. (2009)
California Court of Appeal reversed a damages award for discomfort, annoyance, and inconvenience on the ground such damages cannot be recovered for trespass when the plaintiff does not occupy the property at the time of the trespass

Perlin v. Fountain View Management, Inc. (2008)
California Court of Appeal held that a statute authorizing fees when the plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence a defendant’s liability for neglect also requires proof of causation under the same clear and convincing evidence standard

State Farm v. Superior Court (2004)
California Court of Appeal reversed order compelling arbitration of uninsured motorist claim; held that, when insurer has paid its full policy benefits, the insurer is not required to arbitrate the amount of damages caused by the uninsured driver

Kazi v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2001)
California Supreme Court established that a claim of interference with an easement right does not give rise to an insurer’s duty to defend under a policy covering damage to tangible property

Education

  • Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington
    J.D., summa cum laude, 1991
  • University of Virginia
    B.A., 1987

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Professional Associations

Awards

  • “AV Preeminent” rated by Martindale Hubbell
  • ALM’s “Top Rated Lawyers” section for Appellate Attorneys
  • Super Lawyers (2006-2020)

Publications