Case Background
This legal dispute arose from a tragic accident on January 7, 2021, when Alan C. Alvarez, driving a vehicle owned by Rapid Junk Haulers, LLC, struck and killed Maria Emilia Del Carmen Gattavara Ghillino. Following the death, Ghillino’s estate, represented by Marcelo Fuentes, sued Alvarez and his company. During that litigation, the parties discovered that the insurance policy for Rapid Junk Haulers did not cover auto-related accidents because it contained a standard auto exclusion.
Alvarez and Rapid Junk Haulers had relied on JDA Insurance Group, LLC to provide appropriate coverage for their business, which operated entirely through the use of vehicles. When JDA refused to defend or indemnify them, the business and the estate entered into a settlement. As part of this deal, Alvarez assigned his legal rights against the insurance agency to the estate. Marcelo Fuentes then filed this lawsuit against JDA Insurance Group, alleging the agency failed to procure the necessary insurance that would have protected the business from such a catastrophic loss.
Cause
The primary cause of this action was JDA Insurance Group’s alleged failure to obtain the correct insurance policy for a junk hauling business that functioned solely using vehicles. The Plaintiff argued that the agency recommended a Commercial General Liability policy without auto coverage, even though they knew the business’s primary risks were road-based.
Injury
The underlying injury was the death of Maria Emilia Del Carmen Gattavara Ghillino. In the subsequent insurance dispute, the "injury" to the business and the estate was the lack of financial protection, which left them exposed to a significant legal judgment without a defense or insurance payout.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff sought damages that included the amount of the final judgment from the original wrongful death lawsuit, which exceeded $30,001.00. Additionally, the estate demanded the recovery of litigation costs, interest, and attorney’s fees that would have been covered if JDA had secured a proper $1,000,000 policy.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Marcelo Fuentes, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Maria Emilia Del Carmen Gattavara Ghillino.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Michal Meiler | Arya Attari Li | Lindsay R. Abbondandolo | Scott Michael Aigen
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Mario J. Medina | Christopher Kazor
Defendant(s): JDA Insurance Group, LLC.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Erik P. Crep | Mariela Cano | T. Michael Kennedy
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The Plaintiff's legal team argued that JDA Insurance Group held itself out as an expert capable of understanding complex risks. They contended that since Rapid Junk Haulers had no physical office and operated exclusively via trucks, an insurance agent exercising reasonable care would never have provided a policy that excluded auto accidents. They emphasized that the business owners were inexperienced and had placed their full trust in the agency to protect them.
JDA’s defense team countered by stating that the agency had no duty to provide the specific coverage the Plaintiff claimed was missing. They argued that the business owners had ratified the policy as it was written and that the claims were barred by legal doctrines such as "unclean hands" and estoppel. Essentially, the defense suggested the business was responsible for the policy it accepted.
Claims
The estate brought three specific counts against the agency:
Breach of Contract: The Plaintiff alleged JDA broke its agreement to procure insurance that would specifically defend and indemnify the business against its actual operational risks.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The suit claimed JDA failed to use the required skill and diligence expected of a professional agent, especially by failing to inform the client about the auto exclusion.
Negligence: The Plaintiff argued the agency was careless in investigating the business's needs and misrepresented that the chosen policy would provide adequate protection.
Defense
JDA Insurance Group denied all allegations of negligence and breach of duty. In their formal answer, they asserted that they lacked sufficient knowledge of many of the Plaintiff's claims and demanded strict proof. They maintained that the business had approved the policy and that any damages were not the fault of the agency’s professional conduct.
Jury Verdict
The case proceeded to a jury trial in October 2025. On October 16, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, JDA Insurance Group, LLC.
The jury specifically found that there was no negligence on the part of JDA Insurance Group that served as a legal cause of damage to Rapid Junk Haulers. Regarding the fiduciary duty claim, the jury acknowledged that a relationship of trust existed between the business and the agency. However, they concluded that JDA Insurance Group did not breach that fiduciary duty.
Following this verdict, Judge Peter R. Lopez issued a Final Judgment on October 24, 2025. The Court ruled that Marcelo Fuentes and the estate would take nothing from the action. The case was closed, and the Court retained jurisdiction only to determine the award of legal costs to the prevailing Defendant.
