Schneider & Onofry attorneys Chuck Onofry, Luane Rosen, and Tim O’Connor were recently recognized in Arizona Attorney Magazine Jury Verdicts Section for significant recent jury verdicts. Onofry and Rosen were featured in the “Case of the Month,” while O’Connor’s verdict was featured in a Weekly Highlight.
In Arellano v. Primerica Life Ins., Onofry and Rosen served as co-counsels for plaintiff Miriam Arellano in a life insurance dispute claim. There, plaintiff’s husband applied for a 15-year $100,000 life insurance policy with Primerica Life Insurance company in October 2006. The benefit was subsequently increased to $150,000 and $106.28 in claims were paid by the plaintiff in November 2006. In March 2007, the plaintiff’s husband died and Primerica Life denied the plaintiff’s $150,000 claim for benefits. The insurer denied the claim on the grounds that the insured had failed to disclose a history of a heart condition and had failed to provide blood and urine samples as required by the policy.
Following denial of the claim, the plaintiff brought an action against Primerica and its agents in Maricopa County Superior Court alleging breach of contract, bad faith, insurer producer malpractice, breach of contract to procure insurance, forgery, promissory estoppel, waiver, doctrine of reasonable expectations, consumer fraud, negligence and fraud. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the negligence, breach of contract, bad faith, insurance producer malpractice, forgery and promissory estoppel counts for a total of $591,786 in damages. In addition, the jury awarded the plaintiff $1,117,572 in punitive damages.
Similarly, in Barrio v. Alan Masonry, et al., Tim O’Connor serve as counsel to the general contractor in a case involving injuries sustained from falling from a scaffolding. There, the plaintiff alleged that the general contractor and the masonry subcontractor, failed to provide a safe workplace, causing the plaintiff to fall from the scaffolding. While the jury returned a $108,263 verdict for the plaintiff, the jury placed the majority of fault on Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s employer, and the masonry subcontractor.