The Ehrlich Law Firm

Ehrlich Law Firm obtains depublication of flawed appellate opinion on “duty”

admin — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 02:34:24 +0000

On February 22, 2012, the California Supreme Court denied review in Gonzales v. Southern California Gas Co., but it also ordered that the decision not be published in the Official Appellate Reports of the state. Hence, the decision in Gonzales will not be citeable as authority in California courts. The appellate opinion in Gonzales held that the property owners were categorically exempt from liability for the placement of fixed objects on their property, even if the object was a natural-gas distribution facility that would cause a conflagration if struck by a car. Jeffrey I. Ehrlich filed a letter requesting depublication of the Gonzales decision on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California. It was the only depublication letter filed

Ehrlich Law Firm wins a published opinion allowing punitive-damage claim to proceed against Kaiser health plan

admin — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:33:31 +0000

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)

California Supreme Court grants petition for review filed by Ehrlich Law Firm.

admin — Wed, 11 May 2011 23:51:01 +0000

On May 11, 2011, the California Supreme Court granted review in Hodge v. Aon Insurance Services, No. S191415. The plaintiffs in Hodge are insurance adjusters employed by Cambridge Integrated Services, a third-party claims adjusting firm. Plaintiffs claim that they were entitled to overtime compensation; Cambridge claims they were performing “administrative” work and were therefore exempt. The trial court ruled against plaintiffs, and the Second Appellate District, Div. 8, affirmed in a published opinion, Hodge v. Aon Ins. Services (2011) 192 Cal.App.4^th 1361. That opinion has been de-published as a result of the Supreme Court’s order. The Court has deferred briefing on the case until it resolves another pending matter that deals with overtime compensation for insurance adjusters, Harris v. Superior Court.

Ehrlich Law Firm wins published opinion affirming denial of motion to disqualify trial counsel

admin — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 23:30:10 +0000

On April 26, 2011, Division 8 of the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District certified for publication its opinion in Liberty National Enterprises, LP v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., no. B222455. In the underlying bad-faith action by Liberty against its title insurer, Chicago Title, Chicago moved to disqualify Liberty’s trial counsel after the second phase of a three-phase trial. Chicago Title argued that Liberty’s trial counsel had formerly represented other insureds to whom Chicago Title had issued coverage, and was improperly using his knowledge of Chicago Title’s claims practice to Chicago Title’s prejudice. The trial court denied the motion to disqualify, finding that it was not brought timely. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that it was not timely, and that Chicago Title was unable to show any basis for disqualification.

Read the Decision: Liberty National Enterprises, LP v. Chicago Title Ins. (.pdf)

Reply to Defense Counsels’ Assessment of California Supreme Court Decision in Cabral v. Ralphs

admin — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:41:19 +0000

Counsel for Ralphs’ does not acknowledge that their position was that truck drivers and their employers should be immune from civil liability for the driver’s decision to illegally park a 40-ton obstacle on the freeway shoulder so he could eat a banana and have a cup of tea. Under Ralphs’ theory, truck drivers could park their trucks alongside California freeways anywhere they pleased, for any reason, and as long as they were not blocking a traffic lane there would be no recourse if a passing motorist momentarily swerved onto the shoulder and struck the illegally-parked truck.

In the Daily Journal article Ralphs’ lawyer is quoted as saying that, “after this decision there is no safe place to park in California.” At oral argument the Justices asked this same attorney whether it would be ok for a truck driver to park 3 inches from the travel lanes, and she said that would be fine. If Ralphs’ position had been adopted there would have been no safe place to drive in California, and the Supreme Court recognized this.

It is important to understand that the Cabral decision does not impose a new duty of care on truck drivers, or on anyone else. Rather, it holds that the duty to exercise ordinary care not to create unnecessary risks that is already imposed on everyone in California by Civil Code section 1714, applies to a decision to park a truck alongside a freeway. Ralphs was arguing that the decision to park next to a freeway should be exempt from any duty of care.

When Ralphs’ lawyer says that now, it’s not “safe” to park in California because if your vehicle is stuck a jury will decide whether you had a good enough reason to park, the answer is, that’s generally how the negligence system works. Negligence cases balance the utility of the conduct with the risks it creates. If there had been a valid emergency no one questions that the Ralphs’ truck could have pulled off the freeway. But as the Supreme Court acknowledged, whenever 40-ton big-rigs are parked alongside freeways they pose a risk to passing motorists. If there is a collision between a motorist and a parked truck, it makes sense that the jury would consider whether the truck was parked where it was for a valid reason, and not simply because the driver did not feel like paying to park in a rest area a mile away.

Time Line for Cabral Appeal

Top

Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark negligence ruling in California Supreme Court

admin — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:44:53 +0000

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)

Ehrlich Law Firm obtains reversal of order dismissing bad-faith and broker-negligence lawsuit

admin — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 06:22:19 +0000

Ehrlich Law firm obtains reversal of order dismissing bad-faith and broker-negligence lawsuit. In Koch v. Markel Ins., No. B213610, the Second Appellate District, Division 7, reversed an order sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff’s claims against his insurance broker and his business insurer for negligence, breach of contract, and bad faith.

Read the Decision (.pdf)

Jeffrey Ehrlich argues negligence case in California Supreme Court

admin — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:38:46 +0000

Jeffrey Ehrlich argues negligence case in California Supreme Court. On February 8, 2011, Jeffrey Ehrlich argued Cabral v. Ralph’s Grocery Co. in the California Supreme Court. The case presents the issue of whether truck drivers owe a duty of care to passing motorists when they park alongside California freeways.

For more information, read, High Court Signals It May Rule Against Ralphs In Truck Crash. Daily Journal. Wednesday, February 9, 2011. (.pdf)

Case Update: February 28, 2011. Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark negligence ruling in California Supreme Court: Unanimous Decision in Cabral v. Ralphs

LA Checker Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co. Depublication Request Granted

admin — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:24:20 +0000

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

Jeffrey I. Ehrlich obtains remand of bad-faith action removed from state court to federal court.

admin — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:36:13 +0000

On September 9, 2010, U.S. District Judge Steven V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to remand filed by Jeffrey I. Ehrlich for Shernoff, Bidart & Echeverria, LLP. The insurer, Northwestern Mutual, had removed the case to federal court arguing that the insurance agent named in the lawsuit as a co-defendant was a “sham defendant” whose citizenship could be ignored. Ehrlich filed a motion arguing that California law allowed actions against insurance agents in situations like those presented in the lawsuit, and therefore Northwestern Mutual’s removal was improper. The court agreed, and remanded the case to state court.

Order Granting Remand (.pdf)