Burglarized business sues insurer for bad faith. $542K. Los Angeles County.


Insurer won't pay when its insured says eyewear was stolen in a burglary.

The Case

  • Case Name: AGA & Titan Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company
  • Court and Case Number: United States District Court, Central District of California / 2:20-cv-02698-MCS-AS
  • Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, June 07, 2022
  • Date Action was Filed: Wednesday, February 05, 2020
  • Type of Case: Insurance – Bad Faith, Claims Handling
  • Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Mark C. Scarsi
  • Plaintiffs:
    AGA & Titan Inc.
  • Defendants:
    United Specialty Insurance Company
  • Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

  • Gross Verdict or Award: $542,599.50
  • Trial or Arbitration Time: 4 days
  • Jury Deliberation Time: 1 day

The Attorneys

  • Attorney for the Plaintiff:

    Foster, Sultanyan & Euredjian, LLP by David R. Euredjian, North Hollywood.

    Law Offices of Richard M. Foster by Richard M. Foster and Alec G. Bedrossian, North Hollywood.

  • Attorney for the Defendant:

    Woolls Peer Dollinger & Scher by Gregory B. Scher and Katy A. Nelson, Los Angeles.

Facts and Background

  • Facts and Background:

    On September 9, 2016, plaintiff AGA & Titan Inc. suffered a burglary loss at its premises in Burbank. Plaintiff claimed that the burglars stole more than $800,000 worth of eyewear from the premises.

    Plaintiff submitted a claim to its insurance carrier. After a lengthy investigation, defendant insurer United Specialty Insurance Company denied plaintiff's claim, contending that plaintiff's documents were unreliable such that no losses could be calculated; further that plaintiff failed to cooperate in its investigation.

  • Plaintiff's Contentions:

    Plaintiff contended that its premises was burglarized and that more than $800,000 in inventory was stolen and that defendant insurer acted in bad faith in denying the claim.

  • Defendant's Contentions:

    Defendant claimed that plaintiff's records were unreliable, such that the losses could not be calculated. Defendant also denied there was a burglary. Defendant presented two affirmative defenses: (1) Termination of Insurance Policy for Fraudulent Claim; and (2) Failure to Cooperate.