Personal Injury News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/05] Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a late-night confrontation with several off-duty police officers, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the election of remedies provisions in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 applied to state law intentional tort claims against a governmental unit and its employees; 2) plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest that the officers who assaulted him misused or abused their official power; and 3) bystander officers had no constitutional duty to prevent the alleged assault.

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

[03/04] Coito v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's wrongful death suit against the State of California and various other defendants for the drowning death of her 13-year old son, superior court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel production of certain recorded witness statements is reversed and plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus granted where: 1) written and recorded witness statements, including not only those produced by the witness and turned over to counsel but also those taken by counsel, are not attorney work-product, and thus neither is a list of witnesses from whom statements have been obtained; and 2) the state failed to show that the recorded statements of the four juvenile witnesses were protected work product.

[03/04] Schreiber v. Moe
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against a police officer, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) no reasonable jury could find that defendant violated the Fourth Amendment either by entering plaintiff's home or by remaining inside as long as he did; 2) defendant violated plaintiff's right to be free from excessive force, as striking a neutralized suspect who is secured by handcuffs is objectively unreasonable; and 3) because plaintiff's right to be free from excessive force was clearly established, defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

[03/03] Willis v. Bender
In an action for lack of informed consent and medical malpractice, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no evidence, specifically expert testimony, that another physician was negligent and therefore no basis to hold defendant liable for his negligence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where defendant's alleged misrepresentations to plaintiff in response to her direct questions allegedly induced her to consent to the surgery and its risks, and under those circumstances, if proved, her consent could hardly be considered "informed".

[03/03] In re: Baycol Prods. Litig.
In a failure-to-warn case involving the prescription drug Baycol, a cholesterol-reducing medication, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) an expert relied upon by plaintiff to prove causation had inadequate factual evidence on which to base his opinion; and 2) plaintiff received what he bargained for and therefore could not demonstrate that defendant was unjustly enriched as a result of plaintiff purchasing Baycol.

[03/03] Teachers' Ret. Sys. of La. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
In a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of AIG for breach of fiduciary duty against PricewaterhouseCoopers under New York law, the Delaware Supreme Court certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Would the doctrine of in pari delicto bar a derivative claim under New York law where a corporation sues its outside auditor for professional malpractice or negligence based on the auditor's failure to detect fraud committed by the corporation; and, the outside auditor did not knowingly participate in the corporation's fraud, but instead, failed to satisfy professional standards in its audits of the corporation's financial statements?

[03/03] Asher v. Unarco Material Handling, Inc.
In a suit brought by past and present Wal-Mart employees and their spouses, claiming injuries caused by exposure to carbon monoxide gas in the enclosed freezer section of a Wal-Mart Distribution Center during a two-week period in late 2005, dismissal of a second group of plaintiffs' claims as time-barred is affirmed where: 1) new plaintiffs cite no authority permitting relation back to the filing date of the original plaintiffs' claims under these circumstances; and 2) the district court did not err in holding that Kentucky's "discovery rule" did not apply to toll the statute of limitations.

More...

Insurance Law

[03/09] George's Inc. v. Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer claiming that defendant failed to indemnify plaintiff for business expenses and personal property losses as required under the terms of its insurance policy, partial summary judgment for defendant on the personal property claim is affirmed, but a partial denial of summary judgment on the business expenses claim is reversed where the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for plaintiff's claimed losses.

[03/09] HealthEast Bethesda Hosp. v. United Commercial Travelers of Am.
In an action for breach of an insurance settlement contract, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not an unsophisticated party because it had significant experience in handling and negotiating claims with healthcare providers; 2) because defendant bore the risk of mistake, the district court properly denied rescission based on unilateral mistake; and 3) the record of inaction by defendant strongly supported the denial of relief under both unilateral and mutual mistake.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[03/03] Fed. Ins. Co. v. Commerce Ins. Co.
In plaintiff-insurance company's subrogation claim, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in concluding that the implied coinsured doctrine controlled the outcome in this case and precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a subrogation claim is affirmed as plaintiff has not met its burden of proving that the "Responsibility for Damages" provision of a Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) overcomes the presumption that the landlord's insurance is held for the mutual benefit of both parties.

[02/22] Interstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Wrecking Co.
In plaintiff's claim for subrogation against defendant, alleging that defendant had breached its contract with a general contractor by failing to defend and indemnify the general contractor in an underlying suit, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant pursuant to a demurrer is reversed as the allegations of plaintiff's amended complaint establish each of the elements for subrogation.

[02/19] Versai Mgmt. Corp. v. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer brought after a number of apartment buildings managed by plaintiff sustained damage during Hurricane Katrina, raising contract claims for unpaid insurance proceeds and claims that defendants violated Louisiana law by failing to promptly settle claims and by misrepresenting the terms of their policies, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where, under the policy, plaintiff was not entitled to costs of compliance until after it had incurred the expenses of code compliance. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) the district court was not at liberty to grant summary judgment based on plaintiff's "failure" to support its proofs of loss with additional documentation where the insurance policy created no such obligation; and 2) there was an issue of material fact suggesting that plaintiff was entitled to compensation for business-interruption losses.

[02/18] Bluehaven Funding, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.
In an action by real estate investors against a title insurance company claiming it was vicariously liable for fraud by another insurer with which defendant had an agency relationship, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the insurer responsible for the fraud lacked the authority to provide escrow and closing services as defendant's agent; and 2) defendant had no duty under the agency agreement to monitor the insurer's conduct.

[02/18] Medical Protective Co. v. Bubenik
In an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that it had no duty to pay a malpractice judgment, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the district court did not err in concluding that the malpractice defendant materially breached the cooperation clause in his insurance policy.

[02/18] Fincher v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
In an action claiming that defendant-insurer vexatiously refused to pay plaintiff's underinsured motorist (UIM) claim relating to injuries he sustained while driving a motorcycle as a police officer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where an agent of the local government responsible for its insurance matters possessed the actual, implied authority to sign a form rejecting UIM coverage in excess of the statutory minimum.

[02/18] People v. Kisina
Defendant's conviction for falsifying business records is affirmed where a physician could be found guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree for submitting fraudulent medical documentation to a no-fault insurance carrier for the purpose of receiving payments for treatments that were unnecessary or unperformed.

[02/17] Roberts v. Printup
In a garnishment action against an insurer to collect a judgment that was in excess of the policy limits, claiming that defendant negligently or in bad faith delayed in accepting an offer to settle within the policy's limits, judgment for defendant is reversed where it was foreseeable to defendant that its negligence in failing to implement a system to handle reasonable time-sensitive settlement offers from an injured party could result in a lawsuit being filed against its insured.

[02/17] Baker v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's action seeking to recover under the Underinsured Motorist (UIM) provision of her employer's automobile insurance policy, arising from an automobile accident where she was severely injured during the course of her employment, judgment of the district court affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is vacated and remanded as the district court must determine whether the National Union carve-out applies, namely, whether the employer "explicitly purchased" its underinsured motorist coverage for the purpose of providing UIM coverage to employees injured in the course of their employment.

More...