LA Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co. Depublication Request Granted
On August 11, 2010, Jeffrey I. Ehrlich, principal of The Ehrlich Law Firm filed a depublication request (L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co.) on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys Association of California. (Two other depublication requests were also filed.) On October 27, 2010, the California Supreme Court granted the request for depublication of the L.A. Checker Cab decision.
Depublication of Court of Appeal decisions by the Supreme Court of California used to be a common practice, but in recent years has become quite uncommon. In the last few years roughly 12 cases per year have been ordered depublished.
The significance of the depublication of LA Checker Cab is this: the decision effectively eliminated all insurance coverage in California for any claims of negligent supervision or negligent hiring, because the court held that such claims did not qualify as an “occurrence” that is necessary to trigger coverage. Depublication of the decision means that the decision cannot be cited as precedent in California courts, and therefore California trial courts are not required to follow it.
Read Depublication Request: L.A. Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co.; 186 Cal. App. 4th 767, No. B213948 (Second District iv. One); Order published: July 13, 2010
Why you need an attorney with writ petition experience
The lawyer who petitions for a writ must therefore be able to show the Court that the issue presented is (a) interesting, and (b) important. For this reason, the odds of being able to successfully obtain writ review often depend on the skill of the lawyer presenting the writ petition. At the Ehrlich Law Firm, we have experience with drafting persuasive writ petitions, and have enjoyed success in obtaining writ review for our clients at far higher than the overall success rate for writ petitions.
For example, in Elvira v. Superior Court (2007) B200184, we successfully obtained a writ challenging the trial court’s sustaining of a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint. In DeBruyn v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1213, we convinced the Appellate Court to consider the issue of whether an insurance policy that purported to bar all mold-related claims, regardless of how caused, was consistent with California law. And in Medeiros v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1008, we obtained a writ for a client who had been enrolled in her employer’s health plan electronically, without being given the disclosure concerning the plan’s use of arbitration that were required on the application by state law. In its published opinion, the court held that insurers could not circumvent this law by doing away with the application.
Contact our appellate law firm today to learn more about our legal writing services for attorneys.