The case is CATLIN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. VS. DANKO MEREDITH LAW FIRM, MICHAEL DANKO, San Mateo Superior Court Case Number 20-CIV-00107.


From the online court records for this case it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

There was a deadly airplane crash and attorney Mike Danko and his law firm Danko Meredith represented five heirs in a wrongful death lawsuit.

On March 5, 2018, a $180,000 settlement was agreed upon for one of the plaintiffs.

The settlement included a mutual release of claims between the plaintiff and the defendant, which included the defendant's insurer.




On April 30th the defendant's insurance company wired $180,000 to the Danko Meredith Client Trust Account.

On May 2nd the insurance company mistakenly sent a $180,000 check to the Danko Meredith Client Trust Account.

The Danko Meredith firm apparently deposited the check and allegedly did not tell anyone a duplicate payment had been received.

The claims by the other heirs proceeded to trial. The Danko Meredith attorneys lost and as a result the defendant was entitled to recover costs from their clients.

There was then a settlement where the other heirs agreed not to appeal and the defendant agreed not to pursue costs against them.

The settlement was signed by many parties between December and February 14, 2019.

The settlement included a release of the defendant and its insurers.




The settlement also included a release of unknown claims, even if the claims - had they been known - would materially impact settlement.




The settlement was also signed by the one plaintiff who settled for $180,000.

On July 5, 2019, the insurance company discovered the original settlement had been paid twice and demanded repayment of the $180,000.

Danko and his firm refused, apparently claiming the settlement mutually resolved all claims, which would include a claim for the $180,000.

The insurance company then sued attorney Mike Danko and the Danko Meredith Law Firm in California state court.

Danko and his firm filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit claiming protection by the litigation privilege, but the motion was not ruled on by the judge.

Apparently, the insurance company had dismissed the lawsuit in favor of filing a new lawsuit in federal court.




At this time Lawzilla does not know what, if anything, has happened in the federal lawsuit.

Interesting!

We do not believe the first settlement is important because the double-payment occurred after the settlement was made.

The second settlement, though, could wipe out claims existing before it was signed, which would include the double payment.

An issue that caught our attention was that, although defendant's insurer is listed in the settlement agreement, our read is that plaintiff's attorneys the Danko Meredith Law Firm was not.

It seems to Lawzilla that in the settlement agreement defendant's insurer did not settle or waive claims against plaintiff's attorneys.

A judge or jury (or State Bar) may have the final word on this, but in our lay opinion the settlement agreement was poorly drafted and Mike Danko and his law firm may not be as protected as they think they are.

That is, as we read the settlement agreement:

- There are plaintiffs, and

- There is the defendant, its attorneys, insurers, and others, who are all lumped together and called the "defendant".

The "defendant", even if that included the insurance company, only settled and released claims against the plaintiffs.

The "defendant" did not settle and release claims against plaintiff's attorneys.

If we are right ... oops!


A better agreement, from Danko's perspective, would have listed the plaintiffs, and their attorneys, and lumped them together as "plaintiffs".

If that had happened then in our opinion Mike Danko could be on solid footing to defend a lawsuit.

But our read of the agreement is that is not what happened.

Danko and his firm may not have protected themselves by failing to include themselves in the settlement.

However, reading the court papers it does not appear this potential issue was argued.

Maybe it is a non-issue, or maybe Lawzilla found something the attorneys overlooked.


Then, of course, there is the different, non-legal issue of whether it was "right" for the Danko Meredith law firm to allegedly not tell anyone of the double payment and keep the money.

Our gut reaction was no.

In our opinion, others would have the same opinion, including a judge or jury. Unless attorney Mike Danko and his law firm clearly win all legal issues where a judge has no alternative but to give them a win, our view is they could be in trouble.


The papers we read in the court file refer to ethical issues and attorney responsibilities - issues an attorney for the insurance company claimed could lead to State Bar discipline, potentially including suspension or disbarment. He wrote:




In response, Mike Danko and his firm claimed this was criminal and extortion.




What do you think?

Will the Danko Meredith law firm get to keep the $180,000?

Mike Danko was admitted to the California Bar in 1983. Bar Number 111359.

Danko Meredith
333 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 145
Redwood City, California 94065

Law School: University of Virginia