Legal Career Rises for Downed Navy Pilot
October 3, 1997
Los Angeles Daily Journal, Verdicts & Settlements
By Kate Kinsey
Name: John N. Quisenberry.
Firm: Quisenberry & Barbanel LLP.
Background: Quisenberry was born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi. He received his bachelor's degree in engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1965. After two tours in Vietnam, he received his master's degree in comparative literature from Occidental College in 1972. Between 1972 and 1974, Quisenberry pursued graduate studies in comparative literature at Heidelberg University in Heidelberg, West Germany. In 1980, he obtained his law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles. He has been practicing for 17 years, specializing in litigation with a strong emphasis in insurance bad faith, insurance coverage and business torts. Quisenberry and his wife, Kathy, enjoy traveling.
When you went to the Naval Academy, were you thinking about pursuing a career as an officer or a fighter pilot? "No, I wasn't at all. I had never been out of the South, and what appealed to me was the brochure that I had read. It said you went to South America your first summer on a cruise and Europe the next one. I thought that was exciting."
Now, did you actually do that? "Oh yeah, I went to Norfolk my first summer and New London, Connecticut, my second (laugh)."
When did you do your tours in Vietnam? " I was in the Navy from '65 through '71. So, my tours in Vietnam were '67 through '69 of those years.
You know, when you see the images that came out of the Vietnam War, a Naval Academy officer really doesn't seem to fit in the picture. "(Laugh) That's right. Well, it wasn't a big war for, what they call, the surface Navy or really, just the regular Navy. It was for the little river boats that went up the rivers. It was for the S.E.A.L.s and then, for Navy pilots who flew off of carriers. That's what I did throughout the war, because in the North, you had to have a deck to fly from, so the Navy pilots saw quite a bit of action."
You know, the Vietnam War just seemed too uncivilized for naval officers (laugh). "(Laugh) Just too ungentlemanly (laugh)."
Being in the Navy, was your experience in Vietnam quite different from those in the Army? "You know, you still see Vietnam vets on the corner with cardboard signs and stuff like that. I have talked to my wife about this. I'm sure the war was traumatic. I mean I didn't have to crawl across a rice paddy. For us on a ship, even those who flew a number of combat missions but didn't get shot down or captured, it was exciting and scary, but it was very binary."
Did you face the same reaction back at home? "Well, it was a very schizophrenic time. Everyone was caught up in that, because it was so polarized. My best friend at the time was not in the Navy, and he counseled conscientious objectors. We remained very close friends throughout the whole time. It never caused any friction between us, and I'm sure there were many cases like that."
When you came back from Vietnam, you decided not to pursue a career in the military. "Right. I came back and I was [in California] for a couple of years, flying. Then I wanted to try something else."
What inspired you to get your master's in comparative literature? "I've always loved reading literature, and it was something very different from what I was doing. I always seem to be doing something that is different from my main task. I had been fairly limited in what I was doing. That is, the Naval Academy was limiting."
It focuses heavily on engineering. "Right, which I have never regretted--having an engineering and science background. I was interested in literature. Comparative literature seemed to be an attractive area of study, and I was beginning to get the idea that I'd like to go live in Europe for a while, and so that is what I did...I got out of the Navy, I think it was the end of '71, and went to Europe and ended up over there for the next three years. I went to the University of Heidelberg and pursued a Ph.D. program, but I was never a very serious candidate really--too much fun (laugh)."
(Laugh) Well, that's part of education. Was the legal profession even a consideration then? "No, it wasn't. I would come back in the summers and crop dust, and I did that back in Mississippi. Then, in the winters, I would go over to Heidelberg. After the third or fourth season crop dusting, I began to think about getting some kind of real job and frankly, didn't have any kind of marketing skills. I was never going to be an engineer, I knew that. I wasn't inclined toward being an engineer, and I didn't see flying for a living...I put in an application to UCLA, to law school, and I know this sounds like there was no plan, but that's because there really wasn't one."
(Laugh) That's how a lot of people end up in law school. "(Laugh) Yeah, well, you know, it gave me three years to think about what I was really going to do, and it sounded very interesting to me. I had never been in the mainstream of things, and i thought 'Wel, here is a great way to learn about how the world works and society works and learn a trade in doing it.'"
Did you discover you really enjoyed it once you got into law school? "I liked, very much, the first year of law school and part of the second year, because I felt like I was learning an awful lot. Then I just got [restless] about getting out and practicing, because, by this time, I was 35. I just wanted to do it."
Regarding the Case in Focus, the Robbins case, Mr. Kabateck mentioned that when you saw Mr. Robbins' claim, you knew there would be other claims in the plaintiffs' neighborhood that would have been denied by the defendant. Why? "I had some experience with this insurance company by then and had reviewed a number of other claims against this insurance company. I had a feeling of how the company adjusted claims. I had seen specifically one other claim that was within a couple of miles of Mr. Robbins' house and that claim had been denied as being below the deductible. I had gone to that house and crawled under [it] with a contractor and looked at the damage which was clearly above the deductible. It was a hunch, but it was an educated hunch."
In your opinion, regardless of the causes of action that were claimed, why do you think the defendant denied these claims? "I think because they could get away with it, that's why."
Because these are people who don't have all the resources to fight? "Well, if you take the big picture of how the company handled the claims after the earthquake, in the majority of the cases that I looked at, the company put barriers between the claimant and the policy benefits. They made the insureds fight, work and keep coming back, so that anyone who didn't have the strength or the resources either couldn't collect their claim or couldn't get the full claim. It was a war against the policy holders."
Up until the point insureds file the claim, and it is denied, do you think they believe that the insurance companies are working in their best interest? "I think so. I think most people believe they are going to get shorted a little bit. But I don't believe people, in general, think they are actually going to get denied outright, or they are going to have to bring in 15 different estimates from 15 different car repair places. I think jurors generally believe that the company may have been a little hard but don't get in the box thinking, 'OK, this is an insurance company. It is a terrible company just because it is an insurance company.' I don't find that in voir dire at all. In fact, I would say that over the last two or three years, jurors have been very fair minded and a little skeptical in voir dire when a plaintiff is asking for damages against an insurance company."
Earlier, you said that you often do the opposite of what you are doing at the time. Do you think that in the future, you will go off and do something totally different then what you are doing now? "(Laugh) You know, I don't think so. I guess I could, but I have enjoyed being a lawyer for most of my career. The first couple of years, like anybody, it's kind of hard to enjoy it, but I enjoy being a lawyer. I would not stop doing it."
What other litigation attorneys say about this attorney: Attorney Leonard Venger of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles says: "John is an excellent insurance coverage lawyer...He is a good trial lawyer who would relate well to a jury. He brings an unusual background to the practice of law which I think can be helpful to the degree people have other life experiences. I don't know how many people know it, but John was a combat fighter in Vietnam...He was shot down over North Vietnam. He bailed out over the ocean and was saved. It would be like John not to mention it, so I will mention it. He came to the practice of law with more maturity than most." Attorney Arthur J. Chapman of Chapman and Glucksman in Los Angeles says: "I have been on both sides of litigation with John, and in all my professional experiences with him, he has been an effective and thoroughly prepared advocate on behalf of his client. Most of all, he is the consummate professional, and in this age of eroding courtesies, it is a pleasure to litigate with someone like John. If most lawyers conducted themselves like John, it would be a far more respected profession.
Copyright 1997 Daily Journal Corp. Reprinted and/or posted with permission. This file cannot be downloaded from this page. The Daily Journal's definition of reprint and posting permission does not include the downloading, copying by third parties or any other type of transmission of any posted articles.
