//

At Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, we understand that appeals are different from trials. For that reason, we offer our clients the services of skilled appellate advocates to handle their cases on appeal, or to assist in the trial court when appeal is likely.

Bullivant's appellate attorneys are skilled in their ability to analyze, research, and understand complex issues of law and then to present them clearly and persuasively to the court. By dedicating themselves to appellate advocacy, our appellate attorneys can take the time necessary to digest, summarize, and present the record on appeal, to marshal the best arguments for the court's consideration, and to write the most persuasive brief. And, because of their experience, our appellate attorneys are intimately familiar with the appellate court procedures—they know where, when, and how to get the job done most effectively. Their frequent appearances in the appellate courts, together with the quality of their written product and oral advocacy, gain our appellate attorneys the judges' fair regard.

Representative cases handled by Bullivant appellate attorneys include the following:

  • Columbia Helicopters, Inc. v. Carson Helicopters, Inc., 2010 WL 4269400 (9th Cir. 2010) (Oregon law) (involving an indemnity and defense agreement in a commercial contract)
  • Wilberger v. Creative Bldg. Maint., Inc., 379 Fed. Appx. 630 (9th Cir. 2010) (Oregon law) (involving duty of defendant to foresee criminal conduct of third person)
  • Polymer Plastics Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 389 Fed. Appx. 703 (9th Cir. 2010) (Nevada law) (involving interpretation of business income coverage grant in property insurance policy)
  • Cambridge Townhomes, LLC v. Pac. Star Roofing, Inc., 209 P.3d 863 (Wash. 2009) (involving successor liability and scope of indemnity agreement, among other issues, in construction defect dispute)
  • Am. Commerce Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 220 P.3d 215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (involving alleged waiver of reduced policy limits for UIM coverage)
  • Hanna Ltd. P'ship v. Windmill Inns of Am., Inc., 194 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (involving methodology to calculate loss under a lease)
  • Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. co. v. LCL Administrators, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (involving imposition of terminating sanctions for discovery abuses)
  • Stephens v. Omni Ins. Co., 159 P.3d 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (involving insurer's vicarious liability for acts of independent contractor seeking subrogation recovery)
  • State v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 154 P.3d 1233 (Mont. 2007) (involving property insurance claim for losses relating to "Y2K")
  • Sears Life Ins. Co. v. Matson, 196 Fed. Appx. 479 (9th Cir. 2006) (Alaska law) (involving number of benefits properly payable under a life insurance policy upon the death of a single insured)
  • Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Sea Harvest Seafood Co., 251 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2001) (admiralty law) (involving dispute about marine policy coverage for shipment of frozen shrimp spoiled in transit and court's maritime jurisdiction over dispute)