Issue By: Charles S. Redfield Carmen Zubillaga v. Allstate Indemnity Company Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (June 19, 2017) The “genuine dispute doctrine” provides an insurer a defense against a bad faith claim when there is a genuine dispute with the insured as to the existence of coverage or the amount of the insured’s…

Issue By: Sonia T. Ahmad Alan Heimlich v. Shiraz M. Shivji Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District (May 31, 2017) Must a party that has served a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 present it to the arbitrator before the arbitration in order to recover post-offer costs? Under what…

Issue By: Rachel Ostrander CRST, Inc., et al. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (May 26, 2017) In CRST, Inc., et al. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the California Court of Appeals held that an employer’s admission of vicarious liability does not shield it…

Issue By: Catherine E. Golden Ann. E. Gillotti v. Eugene W. Stewart, et al. Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District (April 26, 2017) In Gillotti v. Stewart, the California Court of Appeals held that the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code § 895 (the “Act”), precludes common law claims for damages caused by construction defects…

Issue By: David L. Blinn California Fair Plan Association v. Marlene Garnes Court of Appeal, First Appellate District (June 14, 2017) On a fire insurance policy, is a “total loss” one in which the damage exceeds the fair market value of the property, or one in which the total structure is destroyed? That was the…

Issue By: Trevor W. Montgomery Christopher Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. Supreme Court of California (May 8, 2017) California Labor Code § 551 states: “Every person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven.” Labor Code § 552 states: “No employer of labor shall cause his employees to work…

Issue By: Vernice T. Louie Michael J. Sumrall, et al., v. Modern Alloys, Inc. Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (April 13, 2017) California Jury Instruction No. 3724 sets forth the Going-and-Coming Rule – Business Errand Exception, which states: “in general, an employee is not acting within the scope of employment while traveling to and…

Issue By: Leeh A. DiBello Ruth Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (April 19, 2017) Plaintiff alleged that while working for Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“Permanente”), she suffered a “temporary” disability which arose as a result of a “relatively uncommon side effect of the medication” she…

The consideration exception to CA’s recreational use immunity statute is contingent upon payment of consideration, not its receipt by the party seeking immunity. Issue By: Joshua K. Bart Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. The Superior Court of San Mateo County (Rowe) Court of Appeal, First Appellate District (April 5, 2017) In Pacific Gas and…

Issue By: Sonia T. Ahmad Muhammad Iqbal v. Imran Ziadeh COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (March 24, 2017) The issue in this case is whether plaintiff’s release in a previous case immunized defendant Imran Ziadeh (“Ziadeh”) against liability arising from the same accident because Ziadeh was an “affiliate” of Yosemite Auto Sales, Inc., its…

© 2015 LOW, BALL & LYNCH | DISCLAIMER | PRIVACY

CONNECT WITH US: