San Rafael California Insurance Law Firm

Unfair competition is essentially a business tort. This makes it a civil wrong, not a criminal violation. However, unfair competition standards are established under both federal law and California state law, both of which allow an aggrieved business to sue the offending business for monetary damages and injunctive relief to halt the illegal behavior. The relevant federal laws are found under copyright laws, trademark laws and the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1125.) Unfair competition does not refer to monopolies or antitrust violations.

In general, what constitutes unfair competition varies with the type of business involved, the specific action being considered and the individual facts of the case. Legal commentators cite the following types of unfair competition most commonly reported -- trademark infringement, misappropriation, unauthorized substitution of one brand of goods for another, false representation of products or services, false advertising, use of confidential information by a former employee to solicit customers, trade libel, theft of trade secrets and breach of a restrictive covenant.

As a California business owner, you undoubtedly know the importance of having various types of insurance for your company. You likely have general liability insurance, property insurance and maybe even business income insurance.  Many companies need errors and omissions, directors and officers and cyber coverages as well.  Though you likely hoped to never need to file a claim, you knew that having this coverage was an important safeguard.

Now, you may find yourself feeling differently about your insurance coverage because of difficulties you face with the insurer after having to file a claim. In fact, you may worry that you will not obtain the payout you need even though your policy covers the claim. What are your remedies for the carrier's conduct?

A California court of appeals has upheld a judgment against a major insurance company for dealing with one of its insureds in bad faith. In August 2008, a 24-year-old man was in a serious car accident on a California highway. He was traveling at around 45 or 50 miles per hour when he crashed head-on with a vehicle that had crossed into his lane traveling approximately the same speed. The at-fault driver, who had crossed into the wrong lane, was killed in the crash.

The insurance carrier for the at-fault driver paid out the policy maximum, $50,000, and the 24-year-old man's attorney sought further recovery from GEICO, which was his insurer. In December 2009, the attorney filed a claim under the man's underinsured motorist coverage. The claim included medical records and other documentation, and it demanded $50,000, which represented the man's $100,000 underinsured motorist policy limit minus the $50,000 that had already been paid by the at-fault insurer.

A California judge has agreed to delay the trial that will decide Johnny Depp's $50 million malpractice lawsuit against his former attorneys until Dec. 2. The trial date had already been postponed several times when attorneys representing the actor and his former law firm appeared in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 29. Depp is said to be eager to put the matter to rest. However, the defendants successfully argued that they require more time because important information has not been handed over to them in a timely manner.

The case has sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry. Oral contingency agreements are common in Hollywood, but their validity was cast into doubt in August 2018 when a judge ruled that such an agreement between Depp and his longtime attorneys was invalid. Depp's lawsuit has also drawn in some of the industry's biggest names. In April, attorneys representing the defendants sent deposition notices to studio heads, prominent attorneys and Depp's ex-wife Amber Heard.