Property

In the matter of State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., the Court of Appeal Second District dealt with a product manufacturer trying to dodge a subrogation action based on the Right to Repair Act. The Court of Appeal determined the Right to Repair Act governing construction defect litigation does not preclude a homeowner, or its insurer, from bringing causes of action which fall outside of the Act.

In the recent case of Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation (2020) 52 Cal.App. 5th 571, the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim, explaining an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an indemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision.  In other words, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights as the insured. . . [h]ere . . . [the insurer] was seeking to stand…

In the recent case entitled Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5^th 94, the California Court of Appeals, First District  held that triable issues of fact as well as the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the “genuine dispute doctrine.”

In the recent case of City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. 5^th 1091(2019), the California Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup.  The Court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial…

In the recent case entitled, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc., (2019) 32 Cal. App.5^th 662, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, in a decision which would have pleased even the donut master himself, Homer Simpson, clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, in order…