 |
The Ehrlich Law Firm News
Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, Appeals Attorney
California Appellate Law Specialist
-
Ehrlich Law Firm convinces U.S. District Judge to reconsider summary judgment for insurer in $8.2 million bad-faith lawsuit, allowing case to go to trial
Lexington Insurance withdrew its defense of an obstetrician in a medical-malpractice lawsuit, and refused to settle the claim within its $1 million policy limits, resulting in an adverse judgment of $8.2 million. In the resulting bad-faith lawsuit, the district court granted summary judgment to Lexington in May 2009. The Ehrlich Law Firm prepared a motion for reconsideration arguing that the district court had incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and that there were triable issues of fact concerning coverage. The motion was granted on June 24, 2009, and the matter is now set for trial in October 2009. Vaid-Raizada v. Lexington Ins. Co., CV08-01106 DDP (CTx) C.D. Cal.
-
Ehrlich Law Firm convinces U.S. District Judge to reconsider summary judgment for insurer in $8.2 million bad-faith lawsuit, allowing case to go to trial
Lexington Insurance withdrew its defense of an obstetrician in a medical-malpractice lawsuit, and refused to settle the claim within its $1 million policy limits, resulting in an adverse judgment of $8.2 million. In the resulting bad-faith lawsuit, the district court granted summary judgment to Lexington in May 2009. The Ehrlich Law Firm prepared a motion for reconsideration arguing that the district court had incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and that there were triable issues of fact concerning coverage. The motion was granted on June 24, 2009, and the matter is now set for trial in October 2009. Vaid-Raizada v. Lexington Ins. Co., CV08-01106 DDP (CTx) C.D. Cal.
-
Ehrlich Law Firm wins reversal of judgment in favor of McDonalds in suit by cashier who was shot at drive-through window
Jeanette Thompson was a 16-year old cashier working at a McDonalds’ franchise store in the Crenshaw District of Los Angeles. She was pulled through the window at the drive-through and shot. In her suit, she claimed that McDonalds’ Corporation controlled the design of the drive through, and failed to install proper protective features. The trial court granted summary judgment for McDonalds’. The Ehrlich Law Firm obtained a reversal, and the matter will now be proceeding to trial. Thompson v. McDonalds’ Corp., 2009 WL 1653443 (2d District, Unpublished)
-
Ehrlich Law Firm wins landmark ruling establishing that health-plan administrators are subject to suit for negligent administration of the health plan
Judge David Mintz had been fighting lung cancer for years. When it recurred, his doctors said his only chance was a treatment called radio-frequency ablation (“RFA”). Blue Cross was the third-party administrator of Mintz’s CalPERS health plan. Blue Cross denied the claim for RFA on the grounds that it was excluded as experimental. But it failed to notify Mintz that under state law, the plan was required to pay for experimental treatment if an independent medical review determined it would be more beneficial for the patient than conventional treatment. Mintz was unable to obtain RFA, and died while his lawsuit was pending. The trial court dismissed his case on demurrer, and the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that third-party administrators can be held liable for their negligent administration of the plan. Mintz v. Blue Cross of California, 172 Cal.App.4th 1594 (2d Dist. 2009).
-
Ehrlich Law Firm convinces Ninth Circuit to submit certified question to California Supreme Court
Scott Minkler appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment on his claim against Safeco Insurance Company under a homeowner’s liability policy. Minkler’s claims arose out of Safeco’s refusal to defend Betty Schwartz, whose son David molested Minkler. Safeco denied coverage because of an exclusion in its policy for claims arising from the acts of “an” insured, because David was a resident of Betty’s home, and hence an insured under her policy. The issue in the case is the proper construction of a provision in the Safeco policy stating that “This insurance applies separately to each insured.” The Ninth Circuit, at the Ehrlich Firm’s request, has asked the California Supreme Court to decide the meaning of that provision. Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2009).
-
Ehrlich Law Firm wins reversal of nonsuit against plaintiff in dental malpractice trial
Denise Easterby’s neck was injured while she was undergoing dental treatment. During his deposition, her treating surgeon testified that he was unable to say that the dental accident was the cause of her injury. This was because he had been provided with a medical record that erroneously stated she had been involved in an automobile accident at the same time. After the deposition, he learned that the record was in error, and there was no auto accident. Easterby’s counsel notified the defense that the doctor had changed his mind, and would testify at trial that the dental accident caused her injury.The defense did not re-depose the doctor, but convinced the trial court to exclude his new opinion, resulting in a nonsuit. The Ehrlich Law Firm obtained a reversal, convincing the appellate court that because the defense had been put on notice of the doctor’s new opinion, they could not exclude it at trial under Kennemur v. State of California, 133 Cal.App.3d 907 (1982). Easterby v. Clark, 171 Cal.App.4th 772 (2009).
-
Ehrlich Law Firm wins affirmance of bad-faith claim against insurer who refused to defend its insured in $11-million bad-faith claim
In May 2002, Darrel Prindle murdered his ex-wife, Jessica, and shot her sister and her sister’s children. The survivors filed a lawsuit against Jessica’s estate for negligently failing to warn them of Darrel’s prior threats and dangerous behavior. Jessica’s homeowner’s insurer, Travelers, refused to defend the estate in the lawsuit, and refused to settle it for the $100,000 policy limits. The estate later settled with the plaintiffs, who obtained a judgment against it in excess of $7 million, and then assigned its rights to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then sued Travelers on the assigned claims. Travelers sought summary judgment arguing that the plaintiffs’ bad-faith claim was defective because they had failed to file a timely claim against Jessica’s estate. In a published decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the summary judgment motion, holding that Travelers was estopped to assert the failure to file a timely probate claim, by virtue of its refusal to defend. In re: Estate of Prindle, 173 Cal.App.4th 119 (3d Dist. 2009). The Ehrlich Law Firm then successfully opposed Travelers’ petition for review in the California Supreme Court.
-
Ehrlich Law Firm wins affirmance of $15 million verdict
On July 14, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $15 million jury verdict on behalf of three Los Angeles Police Department officers who had been wrongfully accused by the department of corruption. In Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2008), the court held that the evidence supported the jury's verdict that the officers' constitutional rights were violated, and that the award of $5,000,001 to each was not excessive. Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich briefed and argued the appeal for the officers.
-
Ehrlich Law Firm wins appeal invalidating Kaiser arbitration agreement
A victim of Kaiser's kidney-transplant program fiasco will have his lawsuit heard by a jury, and not by a panel of arbitrators as a result of the Ehrlich law firm's victory in Burks v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plans (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1021. The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, in Sacramento, held on March 5, 2008, that Kaiser's enrollment form failed to comply with the statutory disclosure requirements concerning arbitration clauses, and as a result the arbitration provision could not be enforced. The decision not only benefits Mr. Burks, but will allow other Kaiser members who signed similar defective enrollment forms to pursue their claims before a jury, in accordance with the constitutional right to a jury trial.
-
Ehrlich Law Firm wins insurance bad-faith victory in California Supreme Court
Insurance companies in California can no longer prevail in bad-faith lawsuits brought by their policyholders simply by showing that there was a "dispute" about whether the insurer should pay the claim. In Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, the Supreme Court reined in the so-called "genuine dispute rule" that had become the insurance industries' most potent defense in bad-faith cases, holding that the rule only applied at the summary-judgment stage, and then only in cases where a jury would be unable to make a finding that the insurer had acted unreasonably. The Wilson ruling makes it much harder for insurers to obtain summary judgment in bad-faith lawsuit.
-
Ehrlich Law Firm wins writ proceeding invalidating Health Net arbitration agreement
The Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has reversed a trial court's order requiring that Mary Medeiros arbitrate her claims against Health Net, arising from the company's failure to provide her with timely medical care. Even though Health Net's enrollment form failed to comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements concerning arbitration clauses, the trial court ordered the case to arbitration. The Ehrlich Law Firm filed a writ of mandate, which was granted in a published opinion. (Medeiros v. Superior Court (Health Net) (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1008. Medeiros is a victory for public employees, because it held that health plans that provide coverage through public agencies must comply with the arbitration-disclosure requirements in the Health & Safety Code and the Insurance Code.
-
Ehrlich Law Firm obtains emergency stay from Court of Appeal for trial lawyer seeking to recuse trial judge
When a trial lawyer's case was transferred from one Superior Court Judge to another at the Mosk Courthouse, the trial lawyer filed a peremptory challenge under Code Civ. Proc. section 170.6. The trial judge ruled that the challenge was not timely filed, because it had not been made at the moment the transfer was announced - before counsel even had a chance to confer with his client. The Ehrlich Law Firm was able to file an emergency writ petition within 24 hours of being retained, and the Court of Appeal granted a stay within 2 hours after the papers were filed. The matter later settled, rendering the proceeding moot. Badalyans v. Aghadjanians, 2/6/08.