David Hungerford is a Partner in Freeman Mathis & Gary's Walnut Creek office. Mr. Hungerford’s practice emphasizes representing primary and excess insurers in disputes over coverage, including pre-litigation matters, declaratory relief actions, and lawsuits alleging bad faith. 

Mr. Hungerford has focused on evaluating and resolving insurance coverage disputes on behalf of insurers his entire career. Mr. Hungerford has counseled insurers in a multitude of contexts — including privacy breaches, data theft, cybersecurity claims, intellectual property disputes, employment matters, catastrophic injury, construction defects, and environmental contamination — under property, general liability, and professional liability policies, as well as more specialized policies increasingly used to insure the risks of the 21st Century. Mr. Hungerford understands that the process of analyzing pre-litigation coverage disputes extends beyond initially advising insurers, and involves listening to the insured, evaluating new information, and continually advising the insurer of any changed circumstances. 

Mr. Hungerford has extensive litigation experience and has obtained judgments on behalf of insurers through both dispositive motion practice and trial. Because he has repeatedly represented insurers in state and federal courts, as well as private arbitrations, Mr. Hungerford understands how coverage issues can and should be litigated to maximize both efficiency and the probability of a successful result. Mr. Hungerford also respects the value of resolving disputes through settlement and has negotiated resolution of numerous matters both within and outside of mediation.

California

Nevada

• Upheld summary judgment ruling on appeal for client on the basis that plaintiff could not establish causation in a catastrophic personal injury case.
• Obtained judgment of rescission of insurance policy in action asserting bad faith by insurer for refusing to pay insured's defense costs.
• Obtained defense verdict after jury trial in legal malpractice action.
• Obtained defense verdict after trial for liability insurer against insured’s claim under advertising injury coverage grant for trademark infringement in which insured claimed damages based on an underlying judgment in excess of $20 million.
• Obtained summary judgment for insurer against insured’s claim that its alleged conduct in the underlying liability action potentially implicated personal injury coverage grant for invasion of the right to privacy.
• Obtained summary judgment for liability insurer against insured municipality seeking damages in excess of $20 million based on subsidence exclusion in policy, where the insurer declined to defend the underlying action and an underlying judgment had been entered against the insured.
• Obtained summary judgment for property insurer based on showing that insured could not meet its burden of proof at trial, including establishing that insured’s proposed expert testimony lacked sufficient foundation to be admissible.
• Obtained summary judgment for liability insurer against insured’s claim under advertising injury coverage grant that the insured’s product labeling potentially constituted use of another’s advertising idea.