Case Updates Archive

In Stelzer v. Nw. Cmty. Hosp., 2023 Ill. App. 220557 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023), a hospital was vindicated when the court found that their consent forms clearly informed patients that the doctors performing surgery were neither employees nor agents of the hospital. A patient required emergency open heart surgery and signed several consent forms that clearly stated that the doctors performing his procedures were not employees of the hospital where the procedure was being performed. Despite this, he sued the hospital under a theory of apparent agency. The court denied his claim and granted the hospital partial summary judgment. Where the consent forms stated multiple times that the doctors were not employees and used bold and all capitalized font to express this fact, the plaintiff could not prevail.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals in Lennar Homes of Tex. Land & Constr., Ltd. v. Whiteley, _S.W.3d_2023 (Tex. May 12, 2023). The high court found that Whiteley, a subsequent purchaser who claimed construction defects against Lennar Homes of Texas Land & Construction, Ltd. (“Lennar”) was bound by the arbitration clause contained in the purchase and sale agreement (“PSA”) between Lennar and the original owner of the home pursuant to the doctrine of direct-benefits estoppel. Despite the fact that Whiteley’s implied warranty claims against Lennar arise partly from common law, nonliability arises from the provisions of the express warranty between Lennar and the original purchaser because the express warranty was incorporated by reference into the original PSA. The court found that the warranty claims asserted by Whitely did not stand on their own, but instead relied on the existence of the original PSA containing the arbitration clause.

In Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL. 128004 (Feb. 17, 2023), the Illinois Supreme Court examined the question of whether claims under section 15(b) and(d) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (the Act) accrue each time a piece of biometric data is scanned or transmitted. In a much-anticipated decision, the high court found that businesses will be liable for each and every infraction; not only the first instance. The impact of this case is far-reaching in assessing potential liability for businesses collecting biometric data in violation of BIPA.

Get ready to take a swing at this golf course injury case! In Wellsfry v. Ocean Colony Partners, 2023 S.O.S. 1709, the court upheld the age-old doctrine of assumption of the risk, affirming the inherent dangers of teeing off. Despite a nasty trip on a tree root, the golfer was not entitled to recover for his injuries due to the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. This case sets a precedent for understanding the potential hazards of the sport and reinforces the importance of personal responsibility on the greens and potentially beyond.

Employers must post a separate appeal bond after an amount is awarded to an employee by the Labor Commissioner. That was the lesson learned in Adanna Car Wash Corp. v. Gomez (2023) 87 Cal. App.5th 642. In this case, the court found that an employer could not substitute the $150,000 bond it already had for the car wash it operated with an appeal bond. Labor Code section 2055, requires a bond as a condition of business licensure, but a separate bond is required under Labor Code section 98.2, which addresses bond requirements in regard to Labor Commissioner awards.

In a victory for LBGTQ+ rights, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, recognized gender dysphoria as a medical condition and determined that those suffering from it are entitled to protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Businesses should take note of this important legal development and the expanded protections under the ADA in the 4th Circuit as similar cases are sure to be adjudicated in halls of justice across the country.

The California Court of Appeal just dropped a bombshell for those defending cases involving bodily injury claims that implicate the right to conduct a mental independent medical examination. In Randy’s Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (Buttram) (2023) (“Randy’s Trucking”), the court tackled the thorny issue of whether an examined party can demand that raw test data and other confidential materials be sent directly to the party’s attorney, rather than to a licensed neuro-psychologist or equivalent professional (collectively, “neuro/psych expert(s)”). The decision has major implications for the defense community, as most neuro/psych experts refuse to participate in exams if forced to disclose test information to non-experts, due to ethical and copyright concerns. This is a major shift in the legal landscape, potentially preventing defendants from obtaining the mental examinations to which they are entitled as a matter of law, and it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court and/or Legislature will address the issue going forward.

Hold onto your hats, folks – the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an insurance coverage dispute in a rare case that could have major implications for policyholders and insurers alike. Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 47 F.4th 225 (3d. Cir. 2022), involves a maritime coverage dispute in which interested parties are watching closely to see how the Supreme Court chooses to handle the choice-of-law issue at its heart, in a decision which could potentially have far-reaching consequences. Basically, the case revolves around whether the “strong public policy” of a state can override the validity of a choice-of-law provision in a maritime insurance contract. While this may sound dull, it is actually a pretty big deal – different states have vastly different legal standards when it comes to determining whether an insurer has denied coverage in bad faith, and deciding which state’s law applies can be game-changing. So, buckle up – this one is going to be a wild ride.

In a closely watched insurance coverage action out of Washington State related to the big tunnel project in Seattle, the Washington Supreme Court provides a primer on the evolution and application of the related to spoliation of evidence. This case involved an insurance claim arising out of the construction of a tunnel in Seattle meant to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct. During the course of the relationship between the parties Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP) disposed of important evidence that was relevant to the determination of its insurance claim it filed after the tunneling mechanism failed. As a result of this loss of evidence, the trial court imposed spoliation sanctions and allowed an adverse jury instruction.

The court in Oberstein v. Live Nation Ent. Inc., No. 21-56200 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023) considered whether the arbitration clause included on Ticketmaster and Live Nation's websites was enforceable. The Oberstein plaintiffs sought to file a class action suit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster for antitrust violations resulting from the companies' alleged over-charging of fees for ticket purchases. In response Ticketmaster and Live Nation filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Terms of Use on their ticket sales websites.

A tenant's risky decision to drop from the roof to his balcony was potentially within the scope of foreseeable dangers a landlord has the duty to protect tenants from. In the case of Razoumovitch v. 726 Hudson Avenue, LLC, the court reminded the parties that California law imposes a general duty on everyone, including property managers, to take reasonable care to keep others safe. In this case. the landlord did not successfully show that a public policy exception changed that duty. The court concluded that the granting of summary judgment was not proper because foreseeability may not be determined as a matter of law, but rather was a question for a jury to determine.

If the person suing can't afford to pay, defendants may be required to pick up the tab. Nursing home that successfully compelled arbitration proceedings with family of decedent client was required to pay for all fees and costs or waive arbitration, where the patient was indigent. Hang v. RG Legacy I, LLC, No. G061265 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2023). 

Can a public entity rely upon design immunity where the public entity failed to warn of a design element that resulted in a dangerous condition of a roadway? In Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (S267453) 60 Cal. App. 5th 423, the California Supreme Court examined whether the design immunity found in California Government Code section 830.6 extends to claims alleging that the public entity failed to warn of a design element that resulted in a dangerous condition and held that public entities still "retain a duty to warn of known dangers that the roadway presents to the public."

Illinois lawmakers passed the Paid Leave for All Workers Act, which was signed by Governor Pritzker on March 13, 2023 and will become effective on January 1, 2024. This new legislation is significant because it requires employers to allow paid leave for any reason or no reason at all. The only other states in the nation with type of mandate so far are Maine and Nevada.

Amid nationwide hesitance by courts to extend business coverage to businesses that shut down during COVID, Coast Restaurant Group came closer to winning its case than most. In the case of Coast Rest. Grp. v. Amguard Ins. Co., No. G061040, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 269 (Ct. App. April 10, 2023), although the court agreed that the government shutdown qualified as a "direct, physical loss" under the policy, the existence of a virus exclusion as well as a clause specifically excluding coverage for loss caused by an ordinance or law foiled Coast Restaurant's hopes of getting Amguard to pay up. This ruling is significant because it effectively splits the opinion of the appellate courts on this issue and leaves more wiggle room for trial courts on this issue.

The Supreme Court of the United States in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, NO. 21-908, Slip Opinion, 506 U.S. _(2023), resolved split opinions in the circuit courts regarding the fraud exception to the discharge of debts in the Bankruptcy Code. SCOTUS established a precedent favoring fraud victims by preventing those who not only perpetrated the fraud, but also those who benefited from it, from having the capability to discharge that debt in bankruptcy. In this case, a wife who was unaware of her husband's fraudulent activity in selling their home with known defects that he failed to disclose, was not permitted to discharge her portion of a judgment for damages against the couple in bankruptcy. The court found that to rule otherwise, would shield those who potentially benefitted from the fraud and allow them to escape liability.

Biometric data is an emerging trend, and jurisdictions around the nation have been enacting statutory schemes. These statutes are now getting tested, and we are starting to see a growing body of case law. On March 31, 2023, the court held that an insured was entitled to coverage for claimed expenses it incurred in an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) class action lawsuit.

It is the Oregon Supreme Court's turn to answer the question addressed in many courts across the country. Do losses related to COVID-19 constitute direct physical loss or damage to property under a commercial general liability insurance policy? Oregon Clinic PC v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. No. 22-35047 (9th Cir. 2023) tackled this question after the U.S. District Court in Portland granted the insurer's motion to dismiss finding that COVID did not qualify as physical loss under the insurance policy. On appeal, the court determined that it needed further guidance before coming to a final decision.

Can you sue a business for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act even if you've never actually patronized it? Federal appellate circuits around the country have answered this question differently. To resolve this circuit split, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Laufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC, 50 F.4th 259 (1st Cir. 2022). The case involves the question of whether or not a plaintiff has standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to sue a hotel for failing to provide information regarding its accessible accommodations. The plaintiff – who never planned to stay at the hotel and never visited the property – claimed she had "standing," or the legal ability to file a lawsuit, because she qualified as someone who "tested" whether businesses around the country violated the ADA.

The Third Appellate District Court of Appeal has issued a decision in which it found that an indemnitee defense clause contained within a general liability insurance policy affords the indemnitee mere status as an incidental third party beneficiary, and that such an indemnitee lacks standing to sue the carrier to provide a defense. LaBarbera et al. v. Security National Insurance Company, C093414 (Super. Ct. No. 34-2019-oo248873-CU-IC--GDS).

COVID-19 business interruption claims have surged nationally since the beginning of the pandemic. The majority of these claims have been unsuccessful for policyholders. However, in Cajun Conti LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 2023 La. LEXIS 563 (La. Mar. 17, 2023), the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that COVID-19 constituted "a direct physical loss of or damage to" the insured's New Orleans restaurant. The insurer appealed the Fourth Circuit’s ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court, who reversed and affirmed what most courts around the country have held – COVID-19 does not constitute physical loss or damage triggering insurance coverage.

In Williamson v. Evans Nail and Spa Corp., 2023 IL. App. (1st) 220084, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting summary judgment for the defendant-nail salon finding that plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact on whether the failure of the defendant to provide: (1) a handrail was in violation of a local ordinance and (2) a sufficient slip resistant mat surrounding a pedicure pedestal created an unreasonably dangerous condition. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff had brought sufficient evidence to create a fact question regarding proximate cause in her slip and fall litigation.

Gig companies, Uber and Postmates, successfully obtained a revival of their claim in federal court alleging that California A.B. 5 unfairly disadvantages app-based ride and delivery services. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Olsen v. State of California, No. 21-55757, 2023 WL 2544853, at *2 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2023). found that the plaintiffs "plausibly alleged" that the main motivation behind A.B. 5 in the California legislature was to disadvantage companies like Uber, Postmates and similar gig-based businesses in violation of equal protection. 

In Hoffmann v. Young, et. al, (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1257, the California Supreme Court held that a teen's parents were liable for injuries sustained by a guest while riding a motorcycle on the motocross track built on their property. The court found that the exception to the recreational immunity defense (Civil Code Section 846(a)) does not apply when the injured party was expressly invited by an agent of the landowner whom the landowner has properly authorized to extend invitations to enter the land on their behalf.

In Brianna Garza and Mario Garza v. Matthew Perry and American Family Insurance Company, No. 83377-4-I, the Washington Court of Appeals determined that an insurance company could not intervene in an action intending to nullify a settlement agreement involving a covenant judgment. The court denied the insurer's attempt to nullify the covenant judgment settlement because it was not a party to the agreement, and upheld the lower court's approval of the agreement through a reasonableness hearing.

In the case of River's Side at Washington Sq. Homeowners Assn. v. Superior Court, 3d. Cir. No.C095860 (2023), a homeowners association successfully argued that it had standing to sue for construction defects on behalf of individual unit owners. Under the Right to Repair Act, homeowner associations do not have standing to sue on behalf of members for construction defects within individual units, but may sue for defects in the common areas. In this case the court distinguished between claims brought under the Right to Repair Act and claims for breach of contract or fraud. If those claims qualify as representative actions, then the association may have standing to sue for issues in the common areas as well as the individual units pursuant to section 382 of the California Civil Code.

In the case of Tufield Corporation v. Beverly Hills Gateway, Case No. B314862 (2022), the court got back to basics in this landlord-tenant dispute. It found that a lease exceeding 99 years is void under the law as a suppression of California public policy encouraging the free exchange and development of land. The primary issue on appeal is whether a lease that violates Civil Code section 718 is void or voidable and is essentially an issue of first impression. The court held that the part of the lease exceeding 99 years was void.

What happens when an injury doesn't surface until fifty years later? The case of Ramirez v. Avon Products, Inc. (2023) Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV22671 Case No. JCCP 4674, discusses this conundrum. It analyzes how courts have dealt with the issue of witness testimony where few at the corporation ever had personal knowledge of policies and procedures regarding the disputed claim at the time the incident took place. Testimony of the "Person Most Knowledgeable” does not earn businesses a pass on the hearsay rules.

Under fee-shifting statutes, a trial judge must award fees to the prevailing party regardless if the prevailing party will actually be responsible for paying the fees. In Cell-Crete v. Federal Insurance Co. (2022) WL 4103354, the surety on a construction project argued that it was owed attorney fees and costs under the fee-shifting statute even though it did not actually pay any of the fees or costs. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the trial court's order to deny the surety's requests for those fees.

In Regan Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc., No. 2020-170-Appeal (Jan. 27, 2023), the Rhode Island Supreme Court, on the facts before it, expanded the obligations of insurers to examine potential policy ambiguities. In short, the Court found that "diversity of judicial thought" as to the meaning of insurance policy language is "proof positive of ambiguity." The implications for insurers are unclear at the moment, but at least on these facts – whether oil was a "pollutant" and thus losses arising from an oil spill were excluded – the Court has now determined that insurance policy contract language may be considered ambiguous where its treatment differs across various jurisdictions. This decision may now impose a duty on insurers to examine how other states treat relevant policy language before making coverage decisions.

Insurance companies may not automatically be off the hook when it comes to coverage for resulting damages stemming from faulty construction. In Gardens Condo v. Farmers Ins. Exch., No. 83678-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2022), the court found that a resulting loss clause in an all-risk insurance policy may provide a condominium complex insurance coverage from damages caused to units by faulty construction of the roof. The resulting damages were covered perils and thus, potentially covered by the policy.

In a pivotal decision, the National Labor Relations Board in Thryv, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1269 Cases 20-CA-250250 and 20-CA-251105, appears to have expanded the potential exposure for employers in actions brought claiming violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Signaling a shift from prior agency interpretation, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has now said that the NLRA's "make whole remedy" requires employers in violation of the law to compensate affected employees for all "direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms" suffered as a result of the respondent's unfair labor practices.

In the case of Norg v. City of Seattle, No. 100100-2 (Wash. 2023), the Supreme Court of Washington answered the question of whether the public duty doctrine insulates the City of Seattle from liability for a 911 response to the wrong address. The Court held that the City was not protected by the public duty doctrine where the harm was particularized and not related to general public duty.

Though attempts to contractually waive an employee's right to sue pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) typically fail in court, a narrow, but important exception to this rule are collective bargaining agreements involving construction workers. In Oswald v. Murray Plumbing & Heating Corp., No.B312736, 2022 Cal. App. Lexis 752 (Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2022), the Court of Appeal found that because the collective bargaining agreement at issue addressed wage and hour provisions, working conditions, and grievance procedures, and specifically mandated arbitration of disputes regarding Labor Code violations, the denial of the plaintiff's right to sue under PAGA was warranted. Consequently, the Court of Appeal found that all employment claims, including those claims under PAGA, should have been submitted to arbitration for resolution in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

In the case of Gulf Coast Center v. Curry, Case No. 20-0856 (Tex. 2022), the Supreme Court of Texas found that courts may not render a judgment that exceeds the statutory damage cap under the Texas Torts Claims Act and a plaintiff seeking recovery under the Act has the burden to prove which cap applies. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the trial court had jurisdiction to render a judgment exceeding the minimum statutory cap. The Texas Supreme Court reduced the $216,000 judgment finding that the Act requires lower courts to cap damages when the defendant is a local government or governmental unit, even if the issue wasn't brought during trial.

The Texas Supreme Court handed down an opinion on January 27, 2023 in Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. v. Skufca. A trial court denied a motion to compel arbitration that involved breach of contract claims brought by Jack and Erin Skufca, along with their minor children alleging construction defects with their new home. The Court of Appeals upheld the denial. In reversing, the Texas Supreme Court held "that the Skufcas' petition, which did not distinguish between the parents' claims and the children's claims, unambiguously reflects the children as joining their parents in asserting the breach-of-contract claim and that the children therefore may be compelled to arbitrate."

In Venema v. Moser Builders, Inc., 2370 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2022), the Superior Court held that the Statute of Repose was not tolled by repairs made several years after the certificate of occupancy was issued. Homeowners are not entitled to unilaterally dictate an extended window to file suit because a builder complies with the agreement in good faith and makes repairs years after the original purchase date.

The court in De Leon v. Juanita's Foods, Inc., No. B315394 (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 23. 2022) made it clear that if a business or employer fails to pay its arbitration fees on time, it will be found in material breach of the arbitration agreement. Juanita's Foods paid its arbitration fees a few days late and despite its assurances that payment was coming and a subsequent payment in fact made, the court held that it was in material breach and refused to consider any other factors to mitigate the late payment. Following clear precedent, the clear language of the statute, and stated legislative intent, the court found that Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97 and 1281.98 provide a bright line rule that courts must follow to the letter.

In a case of first impression, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Norman International, Inc., and Richfield Window Coverings, LLC d/b/a Niem Made (USA), Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, 251 NJ 538 (2022) enforced a Designated New York Counties Exclusion included in a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Admiral Insurance Company ("Admiral"). In so holding, the Supreme Court found that the policy's broad and unambiguous language did not require a causal relationship to trigger the exclusion. Rather, any claim "in any way connected with" the insured's operations in an excluded county fell within the exclusion. Additionally, Admiral had no duty to defend a claim that it was not obligated to indemnify. The determination of whether Admiral had a duty to defend was not determined solely by the allegations of the complaint. Instead Admiral relied upon facts adduced during discovery indicating that in certain instances an insurer may use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. The Supreme Court recommended that going forward, in similar situations, courts should indicate when an issue requires consideration of facts beyond the complaint.

A New York City eviction court denied a motion for summary judgment, ruling that a tenant in a polyamorous relationship with the lease holder was entitled to the same eviction protections as those in two-person relationships. In its denial of summary judgment, the court found that the holdover tenant may be entitled to take the lease in his name after the death of his partner. What could the recognition of polyamorous relationships mean not only for property disputes in the future, but for employers and insurance carriers moving forward?

Washington state courts favor enforcing contractual arbitration clauses, and will strictly enforce an LLC operating agreement to arbitrate claims, including derivative claims, where agreement language is broad enough to include the same. Moreover, a contractual arbitration clause will be enforced absent evidence clearly indicating waiver of an intention to arbitrate.

Determining appropriate policy limits is no easy task. On one the hand, an insured has motivation to keep its retentions, deductibles and premiums down to a reasonable level. On the other hand, that fiscal interest is balanced against the security found in high policy limits designed to protect against a potential serious claim that requires a large payout. Often clients rely on the advice of a broker to help them select appropriate limits and policy terms. When claims come in the door, and the limits are insufficient to cover the damages, the broker may find themselves in the crosshairs of an angry client liable for damages not covered by their policy - and open the door for claims of professional negligence against the broker. Whether an insurer is obligated to defend and indemnify the broker against a claim of professional negligence is a question of policy interpretation recently addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Bliss Sequoia Ins. & Risk Advisors v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 20-35890 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2022).

Courts must abide by the terms of arbitration agreements that invoke the governance of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), or contain a clearly written delegation clause. Terms that provide for an arbitrator to decide threshold issues may not be sidestepped or ignored by state courts. This is true even if the district court finds that the subject of the dispute is not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

King County alleged that a judge was openly hostile to an attorney during a jury trial that resulted in the jury having negative feelings toward the defense. The court ruled that the audio recordings were not subject to disclosure as public records. The lack of transparency and accountability could make for a troublesome precedent.

An Illinois appellate court recently held that a patient's medical privacy rights were violated after the attorneys who secured him a $4.2 million verdict released details of his condition and medical history in the media after the trial concluded.

In quite a scolding for defense counsel, the court in Shapell Socal Rental Properties, LLC v. Chico's FAS, Inc., found on appeal that attorneys have both an ethical and statutory duty to notify opposing counsel of an intent to seek a default. The fact that one party failed to pay rent and pushed the envelope due to COVID closures did not change the obligation of professionalism between legal teams.

The Supreme Court of Washington found that the interruption of a dental office's business operations, caused by the COVID-19 shutdown and restrictions, did not constitute a physical loss under the property insurance policy. Although the dentists' argument that they should succeed under the "loss of functionality" theory was considered by the court, it still found in favor of the insurer because the dental office premises were not physically harmed and, in fact, the office was still functional and being used for emergency dental procedures. The policy also contained a virus exclusion. The efficient proximate causation theory did not assist the plaintiffs because the initial peril in the causation chain (the COVID-19 virus) was excluded under the policy.

New Orleans restaurant wins ground-breaking case in which an appellate court ruled that shut-downs and partial closures due to COVID-19 particles invading a restaurant's physical space may constitute direct physical loss sufficient to trigger coverage under an all-risks insurance policy that did not contain a virus exclusion.

When a property insurer pays for losses under a first-party property insurance policy, they are often paid at actual cash value. Actual cash value is calculated by taking the replacement cost, i.e., the amount it would cost to repair or replace an item of similar kind and quality, less depreciation, i.e., the decrease in the property’s value because of use, wear, obsolescence, or age. For an insurer, this often begs the question, what costs are depreciated when calculating actual cash value?

In a recurring issue of statewide importance, the Supreme Court of Arizona in Zambrano v. M & RC II, LLC, No. CV-21-0205-PR (Sept. 28, 2022) decided that it is against public policy to waive or disclaim the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability in a purchase agreement with a homebuyer. This rule extends to circumstances in which a builder simultaneously provides express warranties providing similar protections.