Email Us For a Response

Bolt Keenley Kim LLP
Representing Clients In
The San Francisco Bay Area
Call Today 510-284-5662

Case Results

Attorneys Jim Keenley and Brian Kim have both produced several notable published decisions over the course of their careers, including:

Dragu v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan for Active Participants, 2015 WL 7274202, — F. Supp. 3d — (N.D. Cal. 2015) — Summary judgment in favor of plaintiff seeking reimbursement for denied health insurance benefits.

Dragu v. Motion Picture Industry Health Plan for Active Participants, 2016 WL 454066, — F. Supp. 3d — (N.D. Cal. 2016) — Order granting $114,570 in attorneys fees in a health benefits case in which the Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge, wrote that “James Keenley helped his client significantly. He pressed Dragu’s claims and achieved enviable success. As a result of Keenley’s efforts, Dragu obtained all the relief she requested — a finding that defendant Motion Picture Industries Health Plan for Active Participants had abused its discretion … Keenley achieved more than ‘some degree of success’ for his client; he was completely successful.”

Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 308 (D. Conn. 2008) — Summary judgment in favor of plaintiff employees in unpaid overtime collective action.

Barling v. UEBT Retiree Health Plan, 2015 WL 4623611 (N.D. Cal. 2015) — Summary judgment in favor of plaintiff employee in class action seeking to recover excess deductibles and coinsurance payments paid by retirees of the United Food and Commercial Worker union.

Alberts v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, 65 F. Supp. 3d 790 (N.D. Cal. 2014) — Decision denying defendant’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, establishes important precedent in the area of what limitations period governs a bad faith insurance action in California.

Brown v. California Law Enforcement Association, Long Term Disability Plan, 81 F. Supp. 3d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2015) — Decision granting our client, the Oakland Police Officers Association’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint filed for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA that establishes an important precedent for the necessary factual predicates for such claims.

McKenna v. Avaya, Inc., 2010 WL 1459821 (N.D. Cal. 2010) — Summary judgment granted in favor of plaintiff on defendant’s affirmative defense of ERISA preemption in a breach of severance agreement case.

White v. Athene Life & Annuity Co., et al., Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No. CGC-13-534083 (S.F. Sup. Ct.) — Order denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment denying plaintiffs’ claims for financial abuse of an elder, professional negligence, and punitive damages in case alleging the sale and marketing of an unsuitable annuity.

Moody v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 595 F.Supp.2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2008): Decision reinstating long-term disability benefits and finding that the insurer wrongfully abused its discretion by failing to acknowledge the insured’s cognitive impairment and by mischaracterizing the insured’s job duties.

Fontana v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 2009 WL 73743 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2009): Decision awarding all past long-term disability benefits to the insured, and holding that medical records do not have to be contemporaneous with date of disability to establish disability.

Fowler v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 615 F.Supp.2d (N.D. Cal. 2009): Decision denying insurer’s summary judgment motion, ordering extensive discovery regarding the extent of the insurer’s conflict of interest and a full evidentiary hearing with witness testimony on the conflict of interest issue.

Martorello v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 704 F.Supp.2d 918 (N.D. Cal. 2010): Decision granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and holding that bonuses earned predisability were required to be included when calculating disability benefits.

Oster v. Standard Ins. Co., 759 F.Supp.2d 1159 (N.D. Cal. 2011): Decision granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment and holding that insurer’s repeat use of peer reviewers, failure to conduct a full and fair review of the claim and failure to comply with its own claims manual provision established an abuse of discretion.