Jordan Altura

Jordan represents insurers and financial services companies in complex commercial litigation. With over 25 years of experience, Jordan's practice focuses on the defense of class actions involving unfair business practices, consumer fraud, and breach of contract. He also specializes in insurance coverage litigation, including ERISA, life and disability matters, and property and casualty claims. Jordan approaches each matter with creativity and analytical insight, working closely with his clients to position disputes for efficient and favorable resolution.

Before joining Maynard Nexsen, Jordan was a Partner in the San Francisco office of a national full-service firm, where he represented Fortune 500 and privately held companies in federal and state courts nationwide, including appeals before the Ninth Circuit and trial courts throughout California.

Community & Professional

• State Bar of California
• Bar Association of San Francisco

• Defeated putative class action (C.D. Cal.) in which Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act’s reimbursement provisions. Plaintiffs, a group of collection agencies that have asserted dozens of cases against insurers in federal courts across the country, claimed damages in excess of $100 million. In opposing class certification, the defense offered evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the claims. After ordering further briefing on the matter, the District Court agreed Plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the action. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
• Motion to dismiss granted in putative class action alleging fraud, breach of contract and consumer protection claims arising out of sale of international travel insurance. (N.D. Ill.)
• Class certification denied in case alleging breach of contract and consumer protection claims based on alleged failure of property and casualty insurer to accurately calculate “diminished value” damages. (W.D. Wash.)
• Defeated class action in California state court (L.A. County) in case alleging the firm’s client, a property and casualty insurer, failed to accurately calculate contractor overhead and profit following a fire loss. The trial court dismissed the action at the pleadings phase — despite the strong reluctance by trial courts to decide class certification issues prior to discovery.
  ERISA and LHD Experience:
• Secured summary judgment in disability case based on prior release with employer and application of the policy’s contractual limitations provision. The District Court (N.D. Cal.) agreed plaintiff had knowingly released claims under the employer’s plan and that, even if she had not, the plan’s contractual limitations period barred the claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
• Summary judgment granted following hard-fought litigation in which plaintiff alleged claims for breach of contract and “bad faith.” The insurer had paid the claim for 21 years but terminated benefits following a determination the plaintiff was working and performing many of the duties of her own occupation. The District Court (D. Ariz) agreed with the defense arguments, holding plaintiff was not entitled to benefits and that the insurer acted reasonably in denying the claim.
• Rule 52 motion granted in ERISA matter on de novo review. The District Court (C.D. Cal) agreed the claim was properly denied because the plaintiff was not disabled based on degenerative disc disease. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that available jobs within the regional labor market were inappropriate for a person with his training and experience, and agreed plaintiff’s restrictions and limitations did not preclude him from performing light physical demand level work.
• Secured defense verdict (second-chair) on behalf of a national disability insurer in case involving claims of breach of contract and “bad faith” arising out of an individual disability insurance policy. The California jury (N.D. Cal.) unanimously concluded the firm’s client properly denied the claim after the trial team demonstrated that plaintiff had misrepresented her true functioning capabilities to her treating doctors and that her claimed traumatic brain injury could not account for her purported symptoms.
• Prosecuted fraud and ERISA claims on behalf of a global healthcare management company seeking restitution of over $20 million in overbillings by healthcare providers, resulting in a favorable settlement with the providers.