What is wrong with the LA Checker Cab decision?

California Writs and Appeals Lawyer

What’s wrong with the LA Checker Cab decision?

Ehrlich Firm submits depublication request to California Supreme Court concerning LA Checker Cab Co-Op, Inc. v. First Specialty Ins. Co. on behalf of Consumer Attorneys Association of California.

The insurance industry is claiming that the decision in LA Checker Cab categorically eliminates insurance coverage in California for all claims based on negligent hiring or negligent supervision. But the decision, which was drafted by the court with the expectation that it would be unpublished, only devoted a single paragraph to this issue, and resolved it in a way that was contrary to established California Supreme Court precedent.

The court’s failure to resolve the issue correctly appears to have resulted from incomplete briefing it received. The appellant failed to file a reply brief to respond to the insurer’s arguments, and failed to present any oral argument.

More detailed arguments pointing out the flaws in the opinion are explained in the depublication request submitted by the Ehrlich Law Firm on behalf of CAOC to the California Supreme Court.

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.

Categories: News and Articles