Meka Moore is a Partner in Selman Breitman’s Los Angeles office and is a member of the firm’s Insurance Coverage practice group. Meka helps insurance companies in coverage-related matters involving first- and third-party cases arising from a variety of policies, including property-casualty, errors and omissions, and general liability. She also has experience in defending insurance companies in disputes that involve complex extracontractual issues and suspected fraud.

Meka’s vast experience in insurance law matters provides her with a unique ability to responsibly advise her insurance company clients on complex coverage issues, particularly those relating to claims of bad faith. She works closely with in-house counsel and takes a collaborative approach to resolving disputes in a manner consistent with her clients’ interests.

Meka has been responsible for several published opinions in California, including the precedent-setting case of Rios v. Superior Court (mistakes of an insurance broker cannot be held against insurer) and Adams v. Superior Court (insurer’s notice of cancellation for non-payment is effective despite post-notice payment by insured to agent).

Meka is originally from Los Angeles, California and currently resides there with her son and daughter. When not helping clients with their legal needs, Meka enjoys volunteering at her children's school, where she assists in the Gateway to Art program.

Representative Cases
Insurance

  • Defending an insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith arising out of the cancellation of an insurance policy by the insured's premium finance lender.
  • Defended an insurance company against claims of breach of contract and bad faith arising out of the adjustment of a homeowner's claim of smoke damage due to a wildfire that occurred near the insured's residence.
  • Represented an insurance company in an action filed by an insured seeking reformation of an insurance policy so as to provide coverage for the business personal property of an entity that was not an insured under the policy at the time of the loss.

Litigation

  • Represented an insurance company and its panel counsel against various causes of action, including breach of contract and bad faith, arising out of the alleged professional negligence of panel counsel.
  • Judgment in excess of $6,000,000 was obtained in favor of insurer, on the basis that the commercial general liability policy did not cover discrimination claims.
  • Summary judgment was obtained for a professional liability insurer in a matter in which plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the subject claim was made and reported, as required by the policy provisions.
  • Summary judgment was provided for a commercial liability insurer on the basis that damages claimed in the underlying suit were based upon contractual obligations and would therefore uncover "economic loss" rather than "bodily injury" or "property damage" arising from an "occurrence."
  • Summary judgment was obtained on behalf of insurer, upholding cancellation of homeowner's policy.
  • Summary judgment was obtained in favor of a commercial general liability insurer on the basis that claims made against insured in underlying litigation did not meet any Coverage B offense.
  • Summary judgment was obtained on behalf of an Errors & Omission insurer for a realtor, on the basis that bodily injury at issue did not arise from a professional service.
  • In a matter that had been transferred to our firm after an adverse ruling on the duty to defend, summary judgment was obtained on all remaining issues, including bad faith and punitive damages. The Court found that the insurance company's interpretation of the policy was reasonable as a matter of law.
  • Summary judgment was obtained in favor of insurer, upholding rescission of policy based upon misrepresentation in the application.
  • Summary judgment was obtained in favor of commercial general liability carrier in a bad faith action wherein judgment creditor pursued damages for breach of contract and bad faith based upon an alleged delay in payment of a judgment in excess of $1,000,000.
  • Summary judgment was obtained in favor of insurer in a matter wherein a judgment creditor sought recovery of a judgment after default against insured. Summary judgment was granted on the basis that insured failed to provide notice to insurer of pending suit in breach of the policy provisions.
  • Summary Judgment was obtained in favor of insurer and general agent in a breach of contract dispute arising from a first-party property matter. The insured had requested coverage for store inventory, which ultimately was not provided by insurance policy. Court found that the mistake was attributable to the insured's own agent, not insurer or general agent. Summary Judgment upheld on appeal.

Published Cases
Litigation

  • Adams v. Explorer Ins. Co.

In this case, the California Court of Appeal upheld judgment in favor of Explorer Insurance Company on the basis that the policy lapsed prior to loss due to non-payment for premium.  In essence, the Court ruled that an insurer's notice of cancelation for non-payment is effective despite post notice payment to his agent.  Further, the Court held that any error on behalf of the insurer stating the amount of past due premiums did not render its Notice of Cancelation ineffective.  Finally, the Court determined that an endorsement request did not, in and of itself, become a binder of new insurance as argued by the insured.  The Court reasoned that an endorsement request is not a new policy, but instead it is simply added to the main policy.  As such, any endorsements added to the main policy would be canceled as well.

  • Rios v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.

The Court of Appeal upheld Summary Judgment against the insured in this matter.  The insured's application had requested a "Special Form" property policy.  Scottsdale Insurance Company, however, offered Basic Form policy instead, which the insured's broker accepted.  Later, an uncovered theft loss occurred, and Scottsdale disclaimed.  In the following lawsuit, the insured contended that her application sought theft coverage, and that her broker represented that she had obtained a Special Form policy.  The Court determined that the application was merely an offer of coverage, and that the quote by Scottsdale for Basic Form was a counter offer, which was ultimately accepted by both the insured and her broker.  Further, the mistakes made by the insured's own broker could not be attributable to the insurance company as a matter of law.  As a result, there was no valid cause of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation or fraud.

Professional Associations and Memberships

  • Association of Southern California Defense Counsel

Awards

  • Super Lawyers: 2012-2018
  • Rated Distinguished® by Martindale-Hubbell​

Related Practices

Bar Admission

California, 1995

Education

Southwestern University School of Law, J.D., 1995

San Diego State University, B.A., 1992