Susan M. Popik
Founding Partner
PRACTICE AREAS
Alternative Dispute Resolution, Appeals & Writs,
Insurance
Sue Popik is a founding partner of the firm who specializes in appeals, complex insurance coverage and claims disputes and insurance bad faith litigation. In over 30 years of practice, she has handled hundreds of insurance coverage and bad faith lawsuits, and routinely advises both insurers and policyholders on coverage issues arising under a wide variety of policies. She also serves as an ADR neutral and expert witness in insurance coverage and bad faith actions. Ms. Popik has been recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer, and as one of the Top 50 Women Super Lawyers, since the inception of the survey.
Ms. Popik is certified as an Appellate Law Specialist by the State Bar of California's Board of Legal Specialization and has represented business and individuals in appeals, writs and major motions in state and federal courts around the country. She also regularly consults with and assists trial counsel in preparing pre- and post-trial motions, in drafting instructions, and in fashioning strategy necessary to protect the client’s rights on appeal. She previously served as Chair of the California State Bar's Committee on Appellate Courts.
Ms. Popik serves on the Board of the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel Foundation and is a former member of the Federation’s Board of Directors. She is a long-time faculty member and former Dean of the Federation's Litigation Management College for claim professionals. She has served as Secretary of the American Bar Association's Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section, as a member of the Section's governing Council, and as chair of the Section's Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee. She is a Life Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and a member of several other professional organizations, including the Defense Research Institute and the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California.
Ms. Popik is a co-author of the “bible” of California insurance litigation, the Rutter Group's California Practice Guide: Insurance Litigation. She is also a co-author of the ABA/West Group treatise, Law and Practice of Insurance Coverage Litigation; a contributing editor of West's California Litigation Forms: Civil Procedure Before Trial; a co-author of California Continuing Education of the Bar's California Civil Writ Practice; and a consultant to CEB's California Civil Appellate Practice and California Liability Insurance Practice: Claims and Litigation. For more than 20 years, Ms. Popik has written a monthly column on insurance developments for CEB's Civil Litigation Reporter. She frequently lectures to industry and professional groups on insurance and appellate issues.
Ms. Popik received her bachelor of art degree, with high honors, from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1969. She received her J.D. from University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1975, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the Hastings Law Journal.
Representative Cases
- Freedman v. State Farm Insurance Co., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (2009): Third-party negligence provisions of homeowners policy do not violate efficient proximate cause rule and operate to exclude coverage whenever item listed in exclusion combines with another excluded peril to cause damage.
- Broussard v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 523 F.3d 618 (5th Cir. 2008): Insureds suing to recover for hurricane damage not entitled to directed verdict where homeowners insurer offered evidence that excluded peril of flooding, not wind, caused damage to insured’s residence [reversing judgment for compensatory and punitive damages].
- In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008) [amicus]: California’s statutory ban on gay marriage violates California Constitution because fundamental right to marry applies without regard to sexual orientation and state has no compelling interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.
- Tuepker v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 507 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2007): Anti-concurrent causation language in homeowners policy is unambiguous and operated to exclude coverage for hurricane damage caused by combination of excluded water damage (storm surge) and covered perils.
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007): Water damage exclusion in homeowners policy applies to both natural and man-made flooding and barred coverage for damage caused when levees failed during Hurricane Katrina.
- Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal. 4th 1112 (2006): Primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to kennel workers as well as veterinarians and precludes claim for injuries sustained by worker bitten by dog in custody of kennel.
- Frye v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic, 38 Cal. 4th 23 (2006): Housing law clinic entitled to enforce fee agreement in landlord-tenant dispute despite clinics failure to register with the California State Bar.
- Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co., 35 Cal. 4th 747 (2005) [amicus]: California’s efficient proximate cause rule does not prohibit insurer from applying “weather” exclusion in homeowners policy that applies only when weather conditions combine with another excluded peril to cause damage.
- Whelihan v. Espinoza, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1566 (2003): Primary assumption of risk applies to recreational activity of jet skiing, barring injury claims by one jet skier against another.
- Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) [amicus]: “Guilty” posters and “Nuremberg” website that displayed photographs and addresses of abortion providers constituted “true threat” under Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
- Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass’n, 26 Cal. 4th 1013 (2001): Tenant association’s attempt to distribute newsletter in privately owned apartment complex not protected by free speech clause of California Constitution.
- Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal. 3d 116 (2000): Under California’s unfair competition law, illegal assessments of nonrefundable charges to tenants must be disgorged to ascertainable tenants and former tenants.
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Slade, 747 So. 2d 293 (Ala. 2000): Anti-concurrent cause language in homeowners policy bars coverage for damage caused by a combination of covered and excluded perils.
- Bergeron v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 766 A.2d 256 (N.H. 2000): Dam on homeowners' property is not "building" for purposes of homeowners insurance policy.
- Rhoden v. State Farm Fire, 200 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 1999): Anti-concurrent cause language in homeowners policy excludes coverage for loss caused in part by earth movement under insureds’ residence.
- State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Bongen, 925 P.2d 1042 (Alaska 1996): Earth movement exclusion and anti-concurrent cause language to bar coverage for damage caused by mudslide resulting from covered cause.
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 639 So. 2d 63 (Fla. App. (1994): Ordinance or law exclusion precludes coverage for mandatory building code upgrades.
- Garvey v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 48 Cal. 3d 305 (1989): First party property losses must be analyzed by reference to the efficient proximate cause of the loss, not the third party concurrent cause rule.
- Isbister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz, 40 Cal. 3d 72 (1985): Boys’ Club is a business establishment within meaning of Unruh Civil Rights Act, precluding discrimination against girls.
- Frazier v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 169 Cal. App. 3d 90 (1985): Tort damages for breach of contract of good faith and fair dealing subject to two-year statute of limitations.
CONTACT
phone: (415) 352-3000
direct: (415) 277-9010
fax: (415) 352-3030
spopik@chapop.com
Recent Publications
Co-Author, California Practice Guide: Insurance Litigation, The Rutter Group
Co-Author, California Civil Writ Practice, Continuing Education of the Bar (3d ed. 1996; 2d ed. 1987)
Executive Co-Editor, CGL Reporter, International Risk Management Institute (1998-2003)
Contributing Editor, “Insurance Developments,” Civil Litigation Reporter, Continuing Education of the Bar (1985-present)
Contributing Editor, California Litigation Forms: Civil Procedure Before Trial, West Group (1996)
Consulting Editor, California Liability Insurance Practice: Claims and Litigation, Continuing Education of the Bar
Consultant, California Civil Appellate Practice, Continuing Education of the Bar (3d ed.)
Co-Author (with Carol D. Quackenbos), Reasonable Expectations After Thirty Years: A Failed Doctrine, 5 Conn. Ins. L.J. 426 (1998)
Author, When Can You Rely on the Ordinance or Law Exclusion? in Environmental Damage Claims and Property Insurance
Coverage, American Bar Ass’n (1996)
Recent Presentations
Speaker, "Torts Practice: 25th Annual Recent Developments," Continuing Education of the Bar, Sacramento (January 16, 2010) and San Francisco (January 30, 2010)
Panelist, “Destined for Appeal: Appellate Tips for the Trial Lawyer,” Bar Association of San Francisco (2009)
Panelist, “Recent Developments in Torts Practice,” Continuing Education of the Bar (2009; annually since 1996)
Panelist, “Insurance Litigation Update,” The Rutter Group (2008; annually since 2002)
Speaker and author, “Developments in Liability Coverage,” Symposium on Critical Issues for Claims Executives, Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel/Property Loss Research Bureau (2008)
Panelist, “Anatomy of An Insurance Policy,” The Rutter Group (2008)
Panelist, “The Ever Shrinking World of Civility: What Would Their Mothers Say?,” Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting (2008)
Conference co-chair and speaker, American Conference Institute, Advanced National Forum on Litigating Bad Faith and Punitive Damages (2007)
©2010 Chapman, Popik & White LLP | 650 California Street, 19th Floor, San Francisco, California 94108 | Tel: (415) 352-3000
