Thomas N. Charchut
Biographical Information
Mr. Charchut is a Partner in Haight Brown & Bonesteel’s Los Angeles office and a member of the Appellate Practice Group. He is certified by the California Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California as a specialist in appellate law. He has drafted more than 125 appellate briefs in diverse areas of law including employment, product liability, personal injury, insurance and probate, and has more than 20 published appellate decisions in state and federal courts. In difficult cases, Mr. Charchut supports trial counsel by monitoring the trial, assisting in the preservation of issues for any potential appeal, and drafting any necessary post trial motions.
Representative Experience:
Mr. Charchut has represented insureds of AIG/Chartis Insurance in a number of high exposure cases, including:
- Gersten v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al, Hayward Superior Court Case No. RG08402343, an asbestos premises liability case, where the jury rendered a defense verdict and a judgment entered in favor of Mr. Charchut's client on May 5, 2009. The case settled on appeal with Mr. Charchut's client recovering a portion of its trial costs
- McCarty v. Caltrans, Riverside Superior Court Case No. RCV060424, a catastrophic personal injury action, where the trial court in 2006 granted a new trial on liability, setting aside a $6.5 million judgment The new trial order was affirmed on appeal and a new trial is pending
- Gousse v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 252804, a complex personal injury action, the trial court in 2004 granted defendant’s motion for new trial on damages, thereby setting aside a $32 million judgment. The new trial order was affirmed on appeal and the case subsequently settled for less than 20% of the verdict amount
In addition, Mr. Charchut has handled a number of cases in the California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit, including:
- Thomas v. Gordon (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 113, appellate court affirmed a judgment in favor of the defendant accountant clarifying and broadening the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel
- Loyd v. Paine Webber (2000) 208 F.3d 755 held that, absent any allegation that defendant law firm knew or should have known of shareholders' fraudulent conduct, the law firm had no independent duty to investigate whether shareholders engaged in fraud
- North American Chemical Company v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.4th 764 (1997) holding that a negligent breach of contract for services may provide the basis for tort damages
- Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England v. Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692 , was a legal malpractice action in which the court reversed a $1 million dollar judgment with directions to enter judgment in favor of defendant, on the theory that a lawyer could not conspire to breach a duty owed exclusively by the client
- Edwards v. California Sports, Inc. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1284, reversal of a million dollar judgment of the trial court with directions and entered judgment in defendant's favor, limiting the scope of duties owed by a sports facility operator to its patrons
Prior to pursuing a legal career, Mr. Charchut was an investment real estate broker for three years and a practicing electrical engineer in the aerospace industry for 12 years.
Community Involvement
- Volunteer, Appellate Settlement Officer for the 2nd Appellate District
- Little League, AYSO
News
Presentations & Publications
