California Court of Appeal, 2nd District — appointed by Joseph Graham Davis
Sprinkles v. Associated Indemnity Corp.
California Court of Appeal · 2010-09-01 · cited 36×
The case involved the heirs of a motorcyclist killed in an accident caused by an employee of Sinco Co., who sued Fireman’s Fund for bad faith, breach of contract, and failure to defend or settle under a commercial general liability policy after partial settlements under other policies and an arbitration award exceeding $27 million. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that the CGL policy provided no coverage. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the employee qualified as an insured under the policy definition because he was acting within the scope of employment while using a required vehicle, which made the automobile accident exclusion applicable and eliminated any duty to defend. The ruling rested on the complaint allegations and judicially noticed facts establishing that the employee was an insured, so the exclusion barred coverage.
business & regulatorytorts & liability
Alvarez v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
California Court of Appeal · 2010-08-12 · cited 4×
In this workers’ compensation case, the widower of a deceased employee sought death benefits after his wife, a waitress, died from a hemorrhage and hypertension allegedly caused by work stress; the claim was denied, and a panel-qualified medical evaluator was selected to assess causation. During the proceedings, the evaluator initiated an ex parte telephone call to defense counsel requesting copies of medical records that had been lost, prompting the claimant to object and petition for a new evaluator under Labor Code section 4062.3, subdivision (f), which bars ex parte communications between parties and evaluators. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the communication was initiated by the evaluator and concerned only administrative matters. The Court of Appeal held that the statute prohibits all ex parte communications regardless of who initiates them or whether they address administrative issues, but recognized that not every such contact automatically requires appointment of a new evaluator due to the informal nature of workers’ compensation procedures; the matter was remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
labor & employmentprocedure
Hervey v. Mercury Casualty Co.
California Court of Appeal · 2010-06-17 · cited 53×
In Hervey v. Mercury Casualty Co., the plaintiff purchased an auto insurance policy from Mercury that included medical expense coverage and uninsured motorist coverage; after an accident with an uninsured driver, Mercury paid her medical expenses but then offset those payments against the uninsured motorist settlement. Hervey filed a class action alleging breach of contract and related claims, arguing that the medical expense endorsement titled 'MEDICAL EXPENSE—NO EXCESS, NO REIMBURSEMENT' prevented any offset against uninsured motorist benefits. The trial court sustained Mercury's demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the policy language was unambiguous and that the endorsement deleted only reimbursement provisions related to third-party liability recoveries, not the separate offset provision in the uninsured motorist section of the policy, which remained enforceable as it was conspicuous, plain, and clear.
business & regulatory
Alvarez v. WORKERS'COMP. APPEALS BD.
California Court of Appeal · 2010-05-14
In this workers' compensation case, the widower of a deceased employee sought death benefits after her employer’s insurer denied the claim that her work caused her fatal intracerebral hemorrhage; a panel-qualified medical evaluator selected under Labor Code section 4062.2 had an ex parte telephone conversation with defense counsel requesting replacement copies of medical records after his deposition. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied the claimant’s request for a new evaluator, holding that the communication was initiated by the evaluator rather than a party and concerned only administrative matters. The Court of Appeal annulled that decision, ruling that section 4062.3, subdivision (f) expressly bars all ex parte communications between a party and a panel-qualified medical evaluator except those made by the employee or dependent in connection with an examination, and that any violation entitles the aggrieved party to a new evaluator from another panel.
labor & employmentprocedure
People v. LIGONS
California Court of Appeal · 2010-05-13 · cited 1×
The case involved a defendant who, while detained in a jail cell after an arrest for resisting eviction, attempted to push past officers and exit the cell, leading to charges including attempted escape by force or violence under Penal Code section 4532. The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant could be convicted based on attempting to escape from an officer's custody inside the jail. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction on that count, reasoning that section 4532 does not apply to breaking away from an officer within the confines of the jail facility and instead requires an attempt to escape the jail itself.
criminal lawprocedure
Yassin v. Solis
California Court of Appeal · 2010-05-06 · cited 22×
In Yassin v. Solis, a licensed contractor sued homeowners for unpaid amounts under a contract for home addition and improvement work totaling $75,000, while the homeowners countersued for breach of contract and damages arising from alleged defective and substandard work that required hiring another contractor to complete. The trial court awarded the homeowners $50,000 in damages on their cross-complaint, nothing to the contractor, and $36,205.14 in attorney fees under Civil Code section 3260, subdivision (g), on the theory that the withheld final $7,500 payment constituted a retention. The appellate court affirmed the damages award based on substantial evidence supporting the homeowners' claims but reversed the attorney fees, reasoning that the final installment payment due upon completion and certificate of occupancy was not a retention (amounts withheld from progress payments as security) under the statute, and thus the prevailing party on that claim was not entitled to fees under section 3260 or related provisions.
business & regulatoryprocedure