Harter et al. v. Bridger Insurance Services, et al.

Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Case Number: 23CV047412
Filing Year: 2023
Plaintiffs: John Harter, Katherine Hebert, and Nancy Salas
Defendants: Bridger Insurance Services and Gary Winterbottom

---

Case Overview

This civil lawsuit was filed by former employees John Harter, Katherine Hebert, and Nancy Salas against Bridger Insurance Services and Gary Winterbottom, alleging wrongful termination, whistle-blower retaliation, and workplace discrimination.

According to the public filings, plaintiffs claim they were terminated or forced to resign after objecting to alleged violations of California’s insurance and labor laws. They assert that Mr. Winterbottom and other agents of Bridger engaged in retaliatory and abusive conduct after plaintiffs raised compliance concerns.

---

Alleged Causes of Action

• Whistle-blower retaliation (California Labor Code § 1102.5)
• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress
• Workplace discrimination
• Hostile work environment

---

Hostile Work Environment

Plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to a severe and pervasive hostile work environment by Bridger Insurance Services, its agents, and Gary Winterbottom.
According to the filings:

• Mr. Winterbottom allegedly yelled, screamed, and used profanity, creating a toxic and stressful workplace.
• Plaintiffs repeatedly objected to alleged violations of California laws requiring insurers to investigate, process, and pay claims fully, promptly, and in good faith.
• Despite their insistence on legal compliance, plaintiffs contend they were met with hostility and retaliation.
• The complaint describes a pattern of daily harassment that fundamentally altered working conditions, causing one plaintiff, Nancy Salas, to feel unsafe and effectively forced to resign (constructive termination).

---

Whistle-Blower & Compliance Allegations

The plaintiffs claim they were retaliated against for opposing illegal conduct and urging compliance with California’s insurance and labor laws.
They further allege that their detailed reporting was meant to help Bridger and its insurers meet their statutory obligations to conduct a reasonable, prompt, and fair investigation under California Insurance Code § 790.03 and related regulations.

---

Damages Sought

Plaintiffs seek:

• Economic and non-economic damages
• Compensatory and punitive damages
• Pre-judgment interest (Code Civ. Proc. § 3291)
• Attorneys’ fees (Gov. Code § 12965(b); Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5)

---

Notes

• This case remains part of Bridger Insurance Services’ broader record of employment and compliance-related litigation across California.
• Alameda County Superior Court case portal: https://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/
• This summary is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or express any view on the merits of the case.