Los AngelesCalifornia(CA) Selman, Neil personal infomation and areas of practice

California Los AngelesSelman Breitman LLP attorney Selman, Neil is a Very good lawyer practice area in Insurance Products Litigation ,Business & Commercial, Insurance, Litigation & Appeals, Personal Injury, Personal Injury -- Defense, Professional Malpractice, Toxic Torts,Selman Breitman LLP

if you have any problem in Personal Injury, Personal Injury -- Defense, Professional Malpractice, Toxic Torts,please email to Selman Breitman LLP or call 310-694-5374 or Go to our company directly(addr:11766 Wilshire Boulevard Sixth FloorLos Angeles,CA) ,we will provide free legal advice for you.

• Neil Selman specializes in representing insurers in coverage and related matters, emphasizing first and third party property-casualty issues, construction and environmental matters, entertainment coverages, professional liability, as well as extracontractual issues. Mr. Selman advises his clients on business practices, underwriting and claims handling, and drafts policy language and endorsements. His expertise also includes primary/excess issues and the representation of surplus lines carriers. He is also involved in the defense of insureds, and has nationally coordinated cases involving toxic substances.

  Mr. Selman has represented insurers not only in a consulting capacity, but has also litigated matters in all areas relating to insurance. He has tried coverage and bad faith cases in California and other States and has appeared in the Appellate Courts of the State of California and other States as well. He has also been responsible for arguing cases before the California Supreme Court which have had significant impact on California insurance coverage law and the rights of insurers.

  Mr. Selman attended the University of Southern California, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1971 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He also received his J.D. at the University of Southern California in 1974. He is admitted to practice before all California State Courts, all Federal Courts within the State of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. He has practiced law continuously since 1974.

  Mr. Selman is rated AV? PreeminentTM by Martindale-Hubbell, indicating that his peers rank him at the highest level of professional excellence.? As reported in the Legal Media Expert Guides’ Guide to the World’s Leading Lawyers, Mr. Selman has been voted by in-house counsel and peers as one of the preeminent insurance & reinsurance practitioners in the world.? For every year since the 2004 inception of the Southern California Super Lawyers attorney-rating service, Mr. Selman has been selected as a Southern California Super Lawyer (2004-2013) and was selected as one of the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers for the years 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012.Representative MattersInsurance

  ? Represent multiple insurers in a lengthy, complex environmental insurance coverage litigation, where an insured oil company seeks coverage for the clean-up of its refineries, oil fields and gas stations across America for pollution caused by the company over the years. The insurers have conducted extensive depositions of site witnesses, experts, and environmental consultants, and successfully obtained rulings against the oil company barring recovery for: (1) the oil company's pre-tender costs; (2) the oil company's claims that do not involve an actual lawsuit; (3) policies containing an absolute pollution exclusion; and (4) policies containing a "sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion. The insurers are now preparing for trial on whether there was any covered property damage during the policy period at an oil field on the Central Coast of California and whether the oil company "expected or intended" such damage. Other phases of trial will involve additional sites.

  ? In a multi-million dollar class action against an automobile insurance carrier, alleging failure to comply with policy cancellation requirements under new legal precedent, procured settlement of several hundred thousand dollars with minimal litigation.

  ? In Federal Bankruptcy court, represented an insurer which issued an environmental remediation policy and paid $75 million limit by devising a strategy to recoup funds which included settlement with debtor securing first lien position on real property, a release of all extra-contractual claims, the filing of actions against third party polluters, and condemnation actions against a municipality, all of? which has so far reimbursed the client for over $55 million and total recovery will achieve almost full reimbursement after sale of land and payment of lien position.

  ? Filed a reformation action on behalf of an insurer against major oil company in a suit involving coverage issues for clean up of polluted sites in which client's $25 million policy did not contain a pollution exclusion.? The case was won when the court granted reformation and ordered that a pollution exclusion, barring coverage for all claims, should be added to the policy.

  ? Successfully defended an insurer against a lawsuit filed by a National Basketball Team alleging coverage under its advertising injury coverage for a suit filed against the team by the NBA, by convincing the trial court that the underlying suit did not arise out of advertising activities, but rather a contract dispute caused by the team's unilateral decision to relocate.? The victory was successfully upheld on appeal by the firm.

  ? Serves as Western Regional Coverage Counsel for Surplus Lines Insurer with responsibility for coverage positions throughout western United States, and also for a separate major admitted carrier.

  ? Counseled excess carrier regarding primary/excess limits on issues arising out of claims involving over $1 Billion of claims arising from the San Diego wildfires.

  ? Served as coverage counsel for various carriers on issues dealing with California earthquakes, including statutes of limitations, appraisals, causation, and demands for re-opening of claims.

  ? After winning in the trial court, established significant appellate authority on the scope of the professional services exclusion by upholding the judgment that determined that ear-piercing was a professional service.

  Published CasesInsurance

  ? Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.Selman Breitman represented Commercial Union in a landmark declaratory relief action involving lost policy issues.? The Dart decision set forth the groundwork for the standard required to prove the terms of a lost insurance policy or other document or instrument.? The Dart court ruled that the terms of a lost document can be proved through secondary evidence establishing the document's substance, but that the contents of the documents need not be proved verbatim.

  ? Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior CourtConvinced the Court of Appeal to grant writ review of trial court's erroneous decision compelling insurer client to produce intra-corporate communications falling within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.? The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's decision, agreeing with our argument that the attorney-client privilege applies to intra-corporate communications not directly involving an attorney if the communications nonetheless reflect legal advice.

  ? Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co.Selman Breitman served as amicus curiae in this landmark California insurance coverage case.? In Montrose, the California Supreme Court determined that continuous and progressively deteriorating bodily injury and property damage constituted an "occurrence" within the meaning of insurance policies.? Accordingly, the court held that a continuous trigger applies such that bodily injury or property damage that progresses or continues through multiple policy periods triggers all policies in effect during those periods.Litigation

  ? Ortega v. TopaSelman Breitman's insurer client issued a restricted auto policy to the plaintiff.? Both the policy application and the policy stated that the insurer would pay 100% of reasonable repair costs incurred at one of its Preferred Repair Facilities ("PRFs"), and 80% of costs incurred at an unapproved facility.? The plaintiff's vehicle was damaged, and he took it to a PRF.? He was dissatisfied with the PRF's repairs.? The plaintiff thereafter brought a class action suit against the insurer.? He argued that the insurer's "two-tiered" system of payment and the use of non-equipment manufacturer ("non-OEM") repair parts involved unlawful "steering."? He also argued that the insurer failed to prominently disclose its two-tiered payment system in the application as Insurance Code section 758.5 requires.? Selman Breitman argued that the use of a two-tiered payment system and non-OEM repair parts is lawful.? Further, the application prominently disclosed that a two-tiered payment system would apply.? The trial court agreed with Selman Breitman's arguments and struck the class claims.? The Second Appellate District affirmed.? It stated that as a matter of first impression, the insurer prominently disclosed its two-tiered payment system in its application.? The Court further held that there is nothing unlawful about the mere use of a two-tiered payment system or non-OEM parts.

  ? Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.Selman Breitman represented Commercial Union in a landmark declaratory relief action involving lost policy issues.? The Dart decision set forth the groundwork for the standard required to prove the terms of a lost insurance policy or other document or instrument.? The Dart court ruled that the terms of a lost document can be proved through secondary evidence establishing the document's substance, but that the contents of the documents need not be proved verbatim.

  ? Wallman v. SuddockSuccessfully moved for summary judgment on behalf of excess insurer client.? Argued that the insurer's policy was excess to and "followed form" with the underlying 2005 to 2006 Capital policy with $1 million limits.? Since the underlying 1994 loss occurred outside the effective dates of the underlying Capital policy, it was likewise not covered under the insurer's "follow-form" excess policy.? Defeated plaintiffs' argument that the excess policy was "ambiguous" as to whether it was excess to a different policy, namely, a 1993 to 1994 Crusader policy with $500,000 limits.? Crusader had defended the action arising out of the 1994 loss and contributed its $500,000 limits to the $1 million settlement (with the plaintiffs contributing the balance).? Plaintiffs contended that the excess policy's Schedule of Underlying Insurance was "ambiguous" and could be interpreted to refer to Crusader because the Capital policy number was described as "TBD."? We argued that to be ambiguous, a policy provision must be subject to more than one "reasonable" interpretation.? The reference in the Schedule of Underlying Insurance to a 2005 to 2006 Capital policy with $1 million limits could not reasonably be interpreted to refer to a 1993 to 1994 Crusader policy with $500,000 limits.? The Second Appellate District affirmed.? It agreed that the Schedule of Underlying Insurance was not reasonably subject to the interpretation plaintiff espoused, namely, that Crusader was the underlying insurer.? The Court of Appeal further agreed with our argument that there was no amount in "excess" of $1 million as required to trigger excess coverage in any event, since the underlying settlement was for exactly $1 million.

  ? Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior CourtConvinced the Court of Appeal to grant writ review of trial court's erroneous decision compelling insurer client to produce intra-corporate communications falling within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.? The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's decision, agreeing with our argument that the attorney-client privilege applies to intra-corporate communications not directly involving an attorney if the communications nonetheless reflect legal advice.

  ? Gridley Assoc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.Selman Breitman appeared pro hac vice before the Court of Appeals in a case involving the interpretation of a sudden and accidental pollution exclusion.? The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling holding that the term "sudden" as used in the exception to the exclusion was clear and unambiguous and necessarily included a temporal element.

  ? Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of HartfordA beauty salon owner brought a breach of contract/bad faith action against its general liability insurer alleging failure to defend allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets, specifically "a customer list, a price list and pricing policies."? The insurer denied coverage under "advertising injury" arising out of? "misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business," questioning: (1) whether Hameid was involved in "advertising"; and (2) whether the allegations gave rise to potential coverage under the "advertising injury" policy provision. The California Supreme Court found most published decisions held "advertising" to mean widespread promotional activities directed to the public at large. The insureds' telephone calls and mailers to a competitor's customers were found to be one-on-one solicitations of customers, not "advertising" and there was no duty to defend lawsuit.

  ? Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co.Selman Breitman served as amicus curiae in this landmark California insurance coverage case.? In Montrose, the California Supreme Court determined that continuous and progressively deteriorating bodily injury and property damage constituted an "occurrence" within the meaning of insurance policies.? Accordingly, the court held that a continuous trigger applies such that bodily injury or property damage that progresses or continues through multiple policy periods triggers all policies in effect during those periods.

  ? Rios v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.The Court of Appeal upheld Summary Judgment against the insured in this matter.? The insured's application had requested a "Special Form" property policy.? Scottsdale Insurance Company, however, offered Basic Form policy instead, which the insured's broker accepted.? Later, an uncovered theft loss occurred, and Scottsdale disclaimed.? In the following lawsuit, the insured contended that her application sought theft coverage, and that her broker represented that she had obtained a Special Form policy.? The Court determined that the application was merely an offer of coverage, and that the quote by Scottsdale for Basic Form was a counter offer, which was ultimately accepted by both the insured and her broker.? Further, the mistakes made by the insured's own broker could not be attributable to the insurance company as a matter of law.? As a result, there was no valid cause of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation or fraud.

  ? Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transp.Obtained California Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeal's decision that insurer client could not seek reimbursement of defense costs it paid under a reservation of rights but was ultimately found not to have owed as a matter of law.? The Supreme Court agreed with our argument that in keeping with the seminal Buss v. Superior Court (Transamerica Ins. Co.) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35 decision and principles of equity, insurer client was entitled to full reimbursement of defense costs it never owed.

  ? Yeager v. Blue Cross of CaliforniaIn this class action case, the firm handled issues concerning statutory construction of an insurance code provision concerning what coverage is required to be provided in a group health insurance policy.? The court held that a health insurer had no statutory obligation to provide all coverages within the group plan on the same terms and conditions as other coverages within the same policy.

  NoteworthyPublications

  Mr. Selman is the author of Chapter 49 - "Business General Liability Policies" (as updated in 2008), California Insurance Law & Practice (Matthew Bender).? In addition to authoring a wide variety of program booklets and other materials for seminars and other programs he has presented, Mr. Selman has authored numerous articles, including "Exposure to a Manifest Injustice: The Argument Against Horizontal Stacking in Latent Injury and Damage Cases," 5 Mealey's Litig. Rep.: Insurance 16, 21 (1990) (cited in Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So. 2d 1058, 1077-78 [La. 1992]); "New Statute re Notification to Claimant of Settlement Checks," California Association of Independent Insurance Adjusters Status Report, February, 1995; "Horizontal Bar - Continuous Loss and Exhaustion of Primary Insurance," Los Angeles Daily Journal, December 18, 1997; "New CGL Form Promises Fresh Theories to Litigate," Los Angeles Daily Journal, December 14, 1998; "Collision Course," Los Angeles Daily Journal, December 13, 1999; Quoted in article: "Liability Could Hinge on What is ‘Act of War,’" Los Angeles Daily Journal, September 14, 2001; "The 'Known Loss' Language Stated In Current Standard CGL Policies – Is It Working? (co-authored with Caryn Siebert), The Critical Path Newsletter of Defense Research Institute (DRI) Construction Law Committee, September, 2008; "Not Losing Sleep Over Exhaustion: Understanding When Excess Insurance Is Triggered," Covered Events Newsletter of DRI Insurance Law Committee, 2011, Issue 5; "Medicare Set-Asides and Third Party Liability Cases" (three part article; July 2011) PropertyCasualty360, National Underwriter Website; "When is Work Abandoned for Purposes of the Products-Completed Operations Hazard?," American Bar Association, Section of Litigation Insurance, Committee on Insurance Coverage Litigation webpage (Summer 2011); "Insureds Fight for Their Day in Court" (co-authored with Rachel Hobbs), Los Angeles Daily Journal, September 8, 2011; "Umbrella Liability Coverage: How It Can Drop Down to Cover Claims Not Covered by Underlying Primary Coverage," Covered Events Newsletter of DRI Insurance Law Committee, 2012, Issue 12; "State Courts Split on Whether Insurers Obligated to Pay Attorney Fees," Los Angeles Daily Journal, May 9, 2013; and "Negligent Supervision Likely Not An 'Occurrence' in California" (coauthored with Lynette Klawon Rintoul), Los Angeles Daily Journal, May 16, 2013.?Presentations?Mr. Selman participates in seminars and panels on insurance issues throughout the United States, including the American Bar Association, the California State Bar Convention, Defense Research Institute, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Orange County Bar Association, Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) for the California State Bar, West Coast Casualty, Combined Claims Conference, Ohio Civil Trial Lawyers Association, Lorman Educational Institute, The Insurance Education Association, RE/MAX International Summer Conference for Brokers/Owners and Managers, The Seminar Group, Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) Annual Conference, and The Environmental Claim Managers Association. Mr. Selman also serves as an expert witness pertaining to insurance and claim handling issues and has testified on various insurance issues. For the past eleven years, Mr. Selman has been invited by the California State Bar to teach insurance issues at the California State Bar Annual Meeting. Mr. Selman has presented continuing education courses regarding insurance issues, pursuant to authorization of the Departments of Insurance in California, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Texas and Missouri. Most recently, Mr. Selman spoke on Primary/Excess Issues at Defense Research Institute's Insurance Coverage and Claims Institute in April, 2013.?Business & Community Activities?Neil Selman's professional group memberships and positions include: the Defense Research Institute (Committee on Insurance Law; current Chair of the Subcommittee on Excess/Umbrella Issues; past Chair of the Subcommittee on Employment Law Claims); the American Bar Association (Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee; Co-Chair of the Additional Insured Subcommittee; past Vice Chairman of the Toxic and Hazardous Substances Litigation Committee, Torts and Insurance Practice Section); the American Bar Foundation, an honorary and educational society of the American Bar Association (Fellow); the Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) (Member); the Litigation Counsel of America (Fellow); the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (Coverage/Bad Faith Substantive Law Committee); the Los Angeles County Bar Association (Insurance Committee); and the American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel (Member).?Mr. Selman has served as Judge Pro Tempore in the Los Angeles Municipal Court and as Arbitrator for the Los Angeles Superior Court Arbitration Program.? He is certified as a graduate of a mediation program provided by Pepperdine Law School, Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, "Mediating the Litigated Case," May, 1999.?Mr. Selman is involved in a variety of community activities in the Los Angeles area. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Hollywood Bowl Society, a support group for the Los Angeles Philharmonic and Hollywood Bowl. He was the founder and Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the Pacific Palisades Celebration of Our Shared Values, which was a community-wide, week-long event focusing on the importance of values, an event sponsored by all religious institutions in Pacific Palisades, California.? Mr. Selman recently served on the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Committee of the City of Los Angeles.

• California, 1974 U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit U.S. Supreme Court U.S. District Court Central District of California U.S. District Court Eastern District of California U.S. District Court Northern District of California U.S. District Court Southern District of California

• American Bar Association (Fellow; Member, Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee; past Co-Chair, Additional Insured Subcommittee; past Vice Chairman, Toxic and Hazardous Substances Litigation Committee, Torts and Insurance Practice Section) Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (Member, Coverage/Bad Faith Substantive Law Committee) Los Angeles County Bar Association (Member, Insurance Committee) Defense Research Institute (Chair, Excess/Umbrella Subcommittee) Litigation Counsel of America (Fellow) Pacific Palisades Celebration of Our Shared Values (Chairman of the Organizing Committee) Human Rights Committee of the City of ?Los Angeles (Advisory Committee (past member) American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel (Member)

• University of Southern California Law School, Los Angeles, California, 1974J.D. University of Southern California, 1971B.A.Honors: magna cum laudeHonors: Phi Beta Kappa

• Selman Breitman was founded in 1980, and is now comprised of more than 100 lawyers in five offices in California and Nevada. We are dedicated to addressing and solving a wide variety of legal issues for our clients to assist them in achieving their business objectives. Our litigation and transactional skills enable us to maintain exemplary standards of practice. We understand that we are a service organization as well as a provider of legal expertise, and we work collaboratively with our clients to meet their business goals.

  Our firm has been instrumental in defining some of the most important issues in the insurance industry through our work in trial and appellate courts in California and throughout the United States. We provide a full spectrum of consulting and litigation services relating to insurance matters. We also handle a wide range of general liability defense matters as well as complex business litigation for various types of clients, including sole proprietorships, mid-sized firms, and large, sophisticated technology companies. We work to keep our clients out of court, but are prepared to bring our talent and resources to the courtroom when a client's business success depends on aggressive and result-oriented litigation. This philosophy has led to recognition of the firm as one of the leading law firms in the western United States.

Selman Breitman LLP & Joy Attorneys

Los Angeles lawyer Bleichner, Brad D. Los Angeles lawyer Almazan, Marla T. Los Angeles California lawyer Berke, David Los Angeles California lawyer Braun, Nathaniel S.G. Santa Ana California lawyer Calareso, Christine D. Los Angeles California lawyer Cappy, Rod J. San Francisco California lawyer Capabianco, Jennifer J. Los Angeles California lawyer Chan, Andrew T. Los Angeles California lawyer Chang, Tammy T. Los Angeles California lawyer Chusid, Bruce G. Los Angeles California lawyer D'Agostino, Elisabeth M. Los Angeles California lawyer Deane, Jeffrey W. Los Angeles California lawyer Edson, Eldon S. Los Angeles California lawyer Finateri Silbiger, K. Lynn Santa Ana California lawyer Fiola, N. Asir Los Angeles lawyer Fresch, Elaine K. Los Angeles lawyer Fresch, Elaine K. Los Angeles California lawyer Friedman, Richard A. Los Angeles California lawyer Goldberg, Karen B. Los Angeles California lawyer Goldberg, A. Scott Santa Ana California lawyer Heiser, Frederick M. Santa Ana California lawyer Henshall, James F. Los Angeles California lawyer Kayo, Megan M. Santa Ana California lawyer Mall, William J. Los Angeles California lawyer Lampkin, Lisa Martin San Francisco California lawyer Kitchen, T. J. Los Angeles California lawyer Klawon, Lynette Los Angeles California lawyer Maki, Craig R. San Francisco California lawyer Man, Janice W. San Francisco California lawyer Leach, Joshua S. San Francisco California lawyer Le, Quyen Thi San Francisco California lawyer Lee, Richard Michael Los Angeles California lawyer Leichenger, Sheryl W. San Francisco California lawyer Lewis, Danielle Kono Los Angeles California lawyer Newman, Gregory J. Los Angeles California lawyer Ramos, Laura R. San Francisco California lawyer Ranck, Christopher C. Los Angeles California lawyer Rettberg, Mary J. Los Angeles California lawyer Revitz, Jennifer Las Vegas Nevada lawyer Rigo, Bernadette A. San Francisco California lawyer Rischman, Suzanne E. Los Angeles California lawyer Pocaterra, Jan L. San Francisco California lawyer Sandgren, Michael E. San Francisco California lawyer Tenero, James R. San Francisco California lawyer Thornton, Gregg A. Los Angeles California lawyer Thornton, Monica Cruz San Francisco California lawyer Schroeder, Edward C. Jr. San Diego California lawyer Sellers, Ryan M. Los Angeles California lawyer Selman, Neil Los Angeles California lawyer Uchida, David M. San Diego California lawyer Shields, Mark D. San Diego California lawyer Silvestri, Angela N. San Diego California lawyer Smith, Melanie M. Santa Ana California lawyer Smith, Jennifer Anne Los Angeles California lawyer Yoon, Hee Sung Los Angeles California lawyer Yuter, Alan B.

Insurance Products Litigation ,Business & Commercial, Insurance, Litigation & Appeals, Personal Injury, Personal Injury -- Defense, Professional Malpractice, Toxic Torts legal template form download

lawyer Selman, Neil Reviews

Litigation

Litigation

Online fax form service?

I need websites where i can post for FREE an ad to go to another website and sign up for a home service. Any sites such as craigslist would be helpful, thank you..

The Principal's Complete Name. The School's Name (if this is his workplace). His Street Address. His City/Town, State and zip code. . Dear Mr. (Principal's Last Name),. . This is the body of the letter. Indent your first sentence, that is go in five spaces before you start to type. You can begin by stating that you hope that this letter finds him in excellent health and how you appreciate the fact that he agreed to be your reference. State the categories or information that he needs to cover. If there is a form that he needs to fill out, then write that you are enclosing it and include the due date and an stamped envelope with the appropriate address on it. . Begin a new paragraph here by indenting again. You can wish him a "Happy New Year" for him and his family or whatever is appropriate. To lighten the mood, you can make positive references or mention some pleasant memories of the school you attended and how he and/or it greatly influenced your life.. . Sincerely yours,. Sign Your Complete Name Here. Type Your Complete Name Here. . (The closing, (Sincerely etc.) should be on the bottom right hand of the paper. It should be parallel to your name, address, city/town, zip etc.. Please Note: The letter should be typed in this manner and single spaced, unless otherwise indicated. Please remember to keep a copy of it and all other related correspondence for your records. Best wishes to you. Take care!)

I've tried to live with Ferne and just can't, I hate it to the point in coffee shops and such I give a fake name because I'm so embarrassed of it.. . I'm 20 and have decided I'm now mature enough to know that like I have for the past 15 years, I want rid of the name.. . My question is, I'm expecting a baby soon and will deal with the name change once she's here but how would I go about having my name altered on her birth certificate? If that's not possible would it be best to change my name before the baby arrives?. . Thanks in advance!.

Free online dating websites that are safe?

I understand the definition but to better recognize the concept I need some examples..

this is the lawyers reviews