Product Defects and The Risk-Benefit Test

Author: David Ramirez

November 13, 2018 9:00am

In the recent case of William Jae Kim, et al. v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al. (2018 WL 4057248), the California Supreme Court affirmed the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal decision which previously affirmed the trial court judgment after a jury found for defendant in a product liability case. Plaintiffs claimed the pickup truck was defective because its standard configuration did not…

Courts will Allow Clarification of an Ambiguous CCP 998 Offer to Compromise in Consideration of the Offer’s Validity

Author: David Ramirez

May 31, 2018 10:13am

In past rulings, courts have held parties to a strict standard when setting forth the terms and conditions of a California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Offer to Compromise (“998 Offer”).  However, in a recent Court of Appeal decision, Prince v. Invensure Insurance Brokers (2018, WL 2276603), the Fourth District Court allowed the party to clarify the terms of an otherwise ambiguous 998 Offer.  The Court reasoned such clarification encourages reasonable settlement offers to be accepted and hence, if the 998 offer is denied after the clarification occurs, then the offering party is entitled to post-offer costs.

No Coverage Where Negligence is Inseparable with Professional Service

Author: David Ramirez

November 26, 2017 11:52am

In the recent matter of Energy Ins. Mutual Ltd. v. Ace American Ins. Co. (2017 WL 3476705), the First District Court of Appeals found that a professional services exclusion barred coverage for wrongful death and other claims blamed on pipeline inspectors’ failure to identify and properly mark a gas pipeline that was ruptured during construction of another pipeline, resulting in injuries and damages.

Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

Author: David Ramirez

November 26, 2017 11:47am

In the recent matter of Estuary Owners Association v. Shell Oil Company, (2017 WL 3172554), the First Appellate District Court of Appeal recently confirmed California’s latent defect statute of limitations, as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, bars only claims based on construction defects.  The Court of Appeal also confirmed under California’s three-year statute of limitations for damage to real property, as set forth in California…

Additional Insured Coverage as to Ongoing Operations

Author: David Ramirez

November 26, 2017 11:38am

In the recent case of McMillin Management Services v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (2017 WL 5377823, November 14, 2017), the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that an insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor under an “ongoing operations” additional insured endorsement for damages occurring after the named insured subcontractor completed its work.  The Court of Appeal determined the endorsement did not limit coverage…

Builder Must Respond To Notice Of Claim Within Statutory Time Frame As Required In California’s Civil Code

Author: David Ramirez

August 10, 2017 1:58pm

Recently, in Blanchette v. Superior Court, (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 521, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that if a builder fails to acknowledge receipt of a homeowner’s Notice of Claim within 14 days, as required by the Right to Repair Act (“SB800”), specifically California Civil Code §913, the homeowner is released from the requirements of SB800 and may proceed with the filing of a lawsuit.

Damage to an Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Risk

Author: David Ramirez

August 10, 2017 1:56pm

In the recent decision entitled Tustin Field Gas & Food v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (2017 WL 2839139) the Second District Court of Appeals ruled a split in an underground storage tank, caused by the tank sitting on a rock for years, was not a covered “collapse” as a matter of law.

Copyright © 2001–2022 Tyson & Mendes LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Big Behavior.