[null, {"document_url": "https://selmanlaw.com/lawyers/alan-b-yuter", "unformatted_src": "https://selmanlaw.com/sites/default/files/Yuter-Alan-web.jpg", "src": "https://selmanlaw.com/sites/default/files/Yuter-Alan-web.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Yuter Alan web"}, null, null]
Alan B.Yuter

EMAIL: email@example.com Location: Los Angeles
Phone: 310.689.7011 Fax: 310.473.2525

Alan Yuter represents insurers in coverage and bad faith litigation arising from all types of insurance policies. He also has extensive experience in handling matters before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Alan has taken numerous examinations under oath and has supervised investigations on suspected insurance fraud.  Additionally, he has testified as an expert witness on insurance matters, including insurance coverage and claim handling issues. Alan has also acted as an arbitrator of insurance disputes and has numerous appellate decisions, including many decisions published by the California Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court, in addition to the appellate courts of other states. Many of his published decisions have developed important principles in California insurance law.

Alan has a degree in economics from Cornell University and received his law degree from Georgetown University Law School in 1981. He has practiced law in California continuously since that time. He is admitted in all courts in California, including all federal courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


Insurance Litigation

Published Cases


In this case, the California Court of Appeal upheld judgment in favor of Explorer Insurance Company on the basis that the policy lapsed prior to loss due to non-payment for premium.  In essence, the Court ruled that an insurer's notice of cancellation for non-payment is effective despite post notice payment to his agent.  Further, the Court held that any error on behalf of the insurer stating the amount of past due premiums did not render its Notice of Cancellation ineffective.  Finally, the Court determined that an endorsement request did not, in and of itself, become a binder of new insurance as argued by the insured.  The Court reasoned that an endorsement request is not a new policy, but instead it is simply added to the main policy.  As such, any endorsements added to the main policy would be cancelled as well.

Alan represented an insurer which had issued a Comprehensive General Liability policy before the California Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court agreed that the Court of Appeal had erred in finding that a defendant may not obtain an award of affirmative relief against a plaintiff by way of a set-off against a demand for money.  Rather, the defendant may only assert the set-off defensively to defeat the plaintiff's claim in whole or in part.  The Supreme Court declined to decide the substantive issue as to whether a set-off claim could be covered under the specific terms of the TIG policy as the plaintiff had failed to prove the terms of the policy

Obtained full affirmance of the judgment in favor of the insurer client following a court trial.  Successfully argued that the insurer was not obligated to pay pre-tender amounts incurred by the insured, regardless of whether it could show "prejudice" (as in late notice cases).

Alan represented an insurer that was sued by a judgment creditor for bad faith delay in satisfying a judgment against its insured.  The insurer paid the balance due on the judgment, including accrued interest, eighty-one days after the payment was due.  Selman Breitman obtained summary judgment for the insurer, and on appeal, successfully argued that a delay in paying policy benefits, resulting in a loss of use of the funds, does not satisfy the economic loss requirement for a viable bad faith claim.  In addition, the court declined to follow the decision in Hand v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (which, as a matter of first impression, permitted a judgment creditor to sue an insurer for bad faith) to the extent it might be deemed inconsistent with its decision.

Obtained California Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeal's decision that insurer client could not seek reimbursement of defense costs it paid under a reservation of rights but was ultimately found not to have owed as a matter of law.  The Supreme Court agreed with our argument that in keeping with the seminal Buss v. Superior Court (Transamerica Ins. Co.) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35 decision and principles of equity, insurer client was entitled to full reimbursement of defense costs it never owed.

On behalf of insurer client, Selman Breitman intervened in liability action against the insured health care provider and its employee after the employee defaulted.  After the trial court ruled that insurer could defend the damage but not liability claims against the insured in default, filed a successful writ petition overturning the ruling.  The Court of Appeal issued a published decision providing an invaluable roadmap for insurers seeking to intervene when their insured is in default or is otherwise unable or unwilling to participate in the defense of a liability action (e.g., due to a suspension of corporate powers for failure to pay franchise taxes).  The Court of Appeal's decision states that intervening insurers may defend against both damage and liability claims against the absent insured, that the default is not binding on the other parties even if they are alleged to be vicariously liable, and that an insurer defending under a reservation of rights has no "conflict of interest" precluding its defense of claims against the absent insured.

Alan represented an insurer which had issued a Commercial General Liability policy.  The insurer disclaimed coverage, asserting that an auto exclusion applied to a claim of negligence in failing to safeguard premises to keep car keys from unauthorized persons.  The Court of Appeal found in favor of the insurer and ruled that an auto exclusion applies to a premises liability claim based upon the failure to safeguard keys.  Furthermore, the court ruled that the auto exclusion was not limited to use of the vehicle by a named insured.

Alan represented a commercial general liability insurer which had issued a policy expressly insuring malicious prosecution.  Selman Breitman successfully argued that coverage for malicious prosecution, although included in the standard form CGL policy, was against public policy in California.  Therefore, LMI Insurance Company was permitted to recover the full amount of its settlement as against the insured Downey Venture.

Selman Breitman obtained defense judgment at trial, affirmed on appeal in a case brought by lenders on a property policy covering a commercial building.  This published decision addressed the full credit bid rule.

In a case of first impression in Missouri, the Western District Court of Appeals held SB's excess insurer client was entitled to pursue a primary insurer for a bad faith failure to settle.


Selman Breitman Attorneys Honored as 2018 Southern California Super Lawyers Selman Defeats $6M Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Claim Against Insurer Client on Motion to Dismiss Selman Breitman Attorneys Honored as 2017 Southern California Super Lawyers Selman Breitman Wins Bench Trial for Western Heritage in Federal Court CA Trial Court Grants Summary Judgment for Scottsdale Insurance Company in Nightclub Case
SB Wins Ruling That Insurers Do Not Owe Property Management Firm $132 Million Alan Yuter and Rachel Hobbs Obtain Published Second District Victory for Client Topa SB Attorneys Honored as 2016 Southern California/San Diego Super Lawyers Selman Breitman Obtains a Published 8th Circuit Decision Affirming Summary Judgment of No Duty of CGL Insurer to Indemnify a Class Action for TCPA "Blast Fax" Allegations Based on the Policy's $1,000 Per-Claim Deductible SB Attorneys Recognized As 2015 Super Lawyers Another Published Appellate Victory By Selman Breitman In Najah V. Scottsdale Insurance Company Los Angeles Insurance Coverage Practice Group Obtains Judgment In Substantial Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Claim Los Angeles Insurance Coverage Practice Group Obtains Summary Judgment In Duty-To-Defend Matter SB Starts 2014 With Super Lawyers Recognition Summary Judgment Obtained In High-Profile Declaratory Relief Action Selman Breitman Partner Alan Yuter Wins Major Appellate Case in Missouri



Understanding Endorsements and Insurance for Truckers

Alan is an avid tennis player and skier. 



Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1981

Cornell University, B.A., 1978

Major: Economics