Personal Injury News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/19] Bregin v. Liquidebt Sys., Inc
In a suit alleging retaliatory discharge and tortious interference with employment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not identify any illegal acts which he was asked to commit, for which a retaliation claim could be brought; 2) state law did not provide a whistleblower exception to the employment-at-will doctrine; and 3) plaintiff did not make out a claim for tortious interference.

[11/17] Goldstein v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles
In a claim alleging that defendants wrongfully obtained plaintiff's conviction for murder based on their pattern and practice of misusing the testimony of jailhouse informants, grant of plaintiff's Penal Code section 924.2 petition seeking access to grand jury materials is reversed where California courts do not have a broad inherent power to order disclosure of grand jury materials to private litigants.

[11/17] Vance v. Wade
In a claim for use of excessive force by police officers in the course of executing a search warrant, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-officers is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded where: 1) defendant-officer did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights in handcuffing him because the handcuffs were removed when defendant learned of plaintiff's complaints; 2) defendant-officer is not entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's claim that defendant used excessive force in cramming plaintiff into the back of a police vehicle.

[11/17] Seals v. General Motors Corp.
In an intentional tort claim action against defendant-employer General Motors for injuries suffered at defendant's metal stamping plant, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the release form signed by plaintiff-employee barred plaintiff's claim as a matter of law.

[11/17] The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.

[11/17] US v. Shefton
Dismissal of petition for an ancillary hearing regarding interest in certain property that was subject to a criminal forfeiture order is reversed where a construct trust can serve as a superior legal interest under section 853(n)(6)(A) and thus can serve as grounds for invalidating a criminal forfeiture act.

[11/14] Cook v. Avi Casino Enters., Inc.
In an action alleging negligence and dram shop liability seeking recovery for damages suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident in which plaintiff, while on a motorcycle, was hit by a drunk driver who was an employee of defendant-tribal corporation, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff established diversity jurisdiction over the case; but 2) dismissal was proper on grounds of tribal sovereign immunity as tribal immunity protects tribal employees acting in their official capacity and within the scope of their authority. For diversity purposes, a tribal corporation formed under tribal law is not a citizen of a state merely because its incorporation occurred inside that state.

[11/14] H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.

[11/14] Giraldo v. California Dept. of Corr. and Rehab.
In a negligence claim by plaintiff-prisoner for abuse suffered in state prison, court order sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's claim for negligence on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege a cognizable duty is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff's negligence claim based on a lack of duty; 2) the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for damages based on an alleged violation of the cruel or unusual punishment clause; and 3) the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

[11/14] In Re Buster
In a suit alleging negligence by a nursing home, in which plaintiff submitted an expert report signed by a nurse, and then sought leave to cure this deficiency by submitting a different report signed by a physician, petition for mandamus relief is granted where the appeals court erred in holding that a new report from a different expert was not allowed.

[11/14] In Re Union Carbide Corp.
In a personal-injury action resulting from exposure to toxic chemicals, in which a second plaintiff sought to intervene and defendant sought to strike the intervention, but the trial court instead severed second plaintiff's claim into a new suit, defendant's petition for mandamus relief is conditionally granted where: 1) the trial court was required to rule on defendant's motion to strike before considering a severance; 2) the trial court lacked discretion to order the severance; and 3) defendant lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

More...

Insurance Law

[11/19] Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a class action claim for statutory penalties under section 5106(a) of New York insurance law against defendant-Allstate Insurance Company, grant of motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 901(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules may be applied in a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction and adjudicating claims under state law; and 2) section 5016(a) did not fall within the exception clause of section 901(b).

[11/18] Redmon v. Sud-Chemie Inc. Ret. Plan for Union Employees
In a claim for failure to pay plaintiff-wife survivor benefits due under her husband's retirement plan and for failing to provide her with plan information she requested, dismissal of plaintiff's claims where: 1) plaintiff did not submit a claim to defendant-retirement plan until 6.5 years after her claim accrued and 1.5 years after the applicable statute of limitations had expired; and 2) accordingly, plaintiff's claim was time-barred.

[11/18] Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
In an action for disability benefits, a judgment that plaintiff-insured was entitled to benefits under a policy issued by defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) defendant-insurance company violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); however 2) the proper remedy was to remand the case to the plan administrator for a full and fair review.

[11/17] The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.

[11/14] H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.

[11/14] Island View Resident Treatment Ctr. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.
In an appeal by plaintiff-treatment center to recover from defendant-insurance company the cost of in-patient care furnished to a patient, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed over claim that the district court erred in transferring the case to another state's district court.

[11/13] Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. West Lake Acad.
In a claim against insureds for declaratory judgment limiting plaintiff-insurance company's exposure under the policy, judgment in favor of plaintiff-insurer is affirmed where the district court properly held that: 1) the claim arose from sexual abuse; 2) the claim was excluded from the commercial general liability provisions of plaintiff's policy; and 3) the claim was covered only under the Sexual Abuse Endorsement, thus making it subject to the limitations of coverage provided in the Endorsement.

[11/12] James v. Richman
In a suit seeking Medicaid benefits, an injunction preventing defendant-Department of Public Welfare from denying benefits is affirmed where: 1) equitable relief was appropriate where plaintiff would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment from seeking monetary damages from the state; 2) plaintiff was not required to exhaust his state-level administrative remedies before seeking federal relief; and 3) a non-revocable, non-transferable annuity purchased by plaintiff's wife did not fit the statutory definition of an "available resource" for purposes of calculating Medicaid eligibility.

[11/10] Robinson Int'l, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
In an insurance matter, decision that final judgment in the original declaratory action barred the maintenance of the subsequent suit is reversed where the court predicted that Supreme Judicial Court would not construe a final judgment in a declaratory action that did not raise coercive claims as barring a subsequent damages action asserting such claims, even though the latter arose out of the same transaction.

[11/06] B & D Contracting v. Pearley
In a challenge to the amount of an award of disability benefits pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act, employer's petition for review of the award is denied where employer's per diem payments to claimant were properly classified by the Benefits Review Board as wages, and were required to be included in benefit calculations as such.

[11/06] Mogel v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.
Grant of motion to dismiss plaintiffs' action against defendant-life insurance company for failure to state a claim is vacated and remanded where plaintiffs stated a viable claim of breach of fiduciary duties under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

[11/06] Moglia v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co.
In a bankruptcy-related action in which debtor's trustee sought partial release of letters of credit issued by debtor to defendants-insurers, and defendants in turn sought to enforce an arbitration provision in the policies, trustee's appeal of a district court order compelling arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) the trustee could be required to sign the arbitrator's hold-harmless agreement; 2) an appeal from the order to sign the agreement was interlocutory in nature, and appellate review was not available; and 3) the court could not review the order under the doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction.

More...