Archive for the ‘Landmark Cases’ Category

On February 15, 2012, the California Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rahm)(2012) __ Cal.App.4^th __.  The opinion holds that a health-care service plan like Kaiser is not subject to the protection of section 425.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits punitive-damages claims against health-care providers without prior court permission.  The court held that section 425.13 did not apply to claims against health plans, which are not considered health-care providers under California law.   The court also held that the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint were sufficient to allege a bad-faith claim against Kaiser in its role as a health plan, and was not merely an attempt to hold the health plan vicariously liable for the medical negligence of the doctors it employed.  In the Rahm case, Anna Rahm, then 17, was complaining to Kaiser doctors for months about unrelenting back pain.  Her family repeatedly requested that Kaiser perform an MRI to determine the cause of the pain, but the Kaiser physicians delayed.  As a result, they did not discovery that Anna was suffering from osteosarcoma, and she lost her leg, and part of her pelvis and spine.

Download California Court of Appeal Opinion in Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rahm)(2012) Cal.App.4^th  (.pdf)

In a unanimous decision the California Supreme Court reversed a JNOV ordered by the Court of Appeal in Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. The decision reinstates a wrongful death judgment on behalf of the family of Adelmo Cabral, who was killed when his car veered off the freeway and collided with the back of a Ralph’s tractor-trailer rig that had been parked 16 feet from the freeway while its driver had a snack. The jury held that Ralphs’ was 10% at fault for the crash, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the crash was “unforseeable” and that truck drivers therefore owed no duty to passing freeway motorists in the manner in which they parked their trucks as long as they were out of the travel lanes. The Supreme Court rejected all of the appellate court’s reasoning. The decision is important because it expressly curtails the practice used by trial and appellate courts with increasing frequency to decide negligence cases as a matter of law by finding that the defendant owed the plaintiff no duty of care on the particular facts of the case. The Court held that the decision that no duty of care is owed — which is more accurately framed as a finding that an exception should be made to the general duty of care imposed on all persons by California law — “is to be made on a more general basis suitable to the formulation of a legal rule.” As a result, the Cabral decision will mean that more negligence cases in California will be decided by juries, based on the specific facts of the case, and not by courts based on a finding that no duty exists.

Read The Decision (.pdf)

On August 11, 2010, Jeffrey Isaac 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

Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark insurance decision in California Supreme Court. A unanimous California Supreme Court held that a “severability of insurance” clause made a homeowner’s liability policy ambiguous where the insurer sought to rely on an exclusion that withdrew coverage for all insureds under the policy based on the intentional acts of one insured. Plaintiff Scott Minkler holds a $5 million judgment against David Schwartz, who molested him, and against David’s mother, Betty, for negligently failing to stop the wrongful conduct. Betty’s insurer rejected coverage, arguing that the intentional-acts exclusion in the policy, which withdrew coverage for any claim arising from the intentional acts of “an” insured, applied to the claims against Betty because David’s conduct was intentional. The Supreme Court adopted the approach advanced by the Ehrlich Law Firm, finding that the policy’s severability provision, which states that “this insurance applies separately to each insured” would lead a reasonable insured to conclude that he or she would be treated as the only insured under the policy. Because most liability policies have severability clauses, the Minkler case may substantially broaden coverage in California for failure-to-supervise claims. Minkler v. Safeco (2010) __ Cal.4th __.)

Ehrlich Law Firm prevails in California Supreme Court on case involving important issues of California civil-writ practice and procedure. In a closely-watched case involving civil-writ procedure in California, the  California Supreme Court adopted the position advocated by the Ehrlich Law Firm, and held that appellate courts can properly issue so-called “speaking” or “suggestive” Palma notices when they are inclined to issue a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance. A Palma notice informs the parties that an appellate court is inclined to grant a peremptory writ in the first instance. A speaking Palma notice goes further, and explains why the Court is taking the position it takes, and often directs the trial court to change its order. The Supreme Court held that a speaking Palma notice is proper, but that trial courts should hold a hearing before changing an order in response to such a notice. (Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri v. Superior Court (Great American Ins. Co.)(2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233.)