Seagulls on the Water?¹ Has California Supreme Court Indicated A Major Change in Direction for the Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony?

February 18, 2013, 9:13 am

≫ Next: Asbestos Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When Dissolved Corporations May Be Sued Greb v Diamond International Corp ___Cal.4th____(2/21/13)

$

0

0

California courts have generally granted qualified experts wide latitude in permitting their opinion testimony to be heard by a jury. In the recent case of Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, the...
By: Thomas LoSavio

---

Asbestos Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When Dissolved Corporations May Be Sued Greb v Diamond International Corp ___Cal.4th____(2/21/13)

February 25, 2013, 7:49 am

≫ Next: When is Late Too Late?

≪ Previous: Seagulls on the Water?¹ Has California Supreme Court Indicated A Major Change in Direction for the Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony?

$

0

0

Dissolved corporations are frequently sued after their dissolution has taken place in an effort to reach insurance policy coverage for the claim being made. California has a statute, Corporation Code §2010, which does not limit the time for bringing...
By: Thomas LoSavio

When is Late Too Late?

February 25, 2013, 11:11 am

≫ Next: White Paper: The Other Shoe Drops – Corenbaum Answers Questions Raised by Howell

≪ Previous: Asbestos Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies When Dissolved Corporations May Be Sued Greb v Diamond International Corp ___Cal.4th____(2/21/13)

$

0

0

The statute of limitations defense seems simple: when a party has waited too long to bring a claim, the claim is barred by the passage of time prescribed by the Legislature. Complexity arises when the following factors are considered: what is the...
By: Thomas LoSavio

White Paper: The Other Shoe Drops – Corenbaum Answers Questions Raised by Howell

May 8, 2013, 3:27 pm

≫ Next: Weekly Law Resume - May 9, 2013: A Single Statutory Settlement Offer Made to Multiple Plaintiffs in a Wrongful Death Suit is Valid

≪ Previous: When is Late Too Late?

$

0

0

In Howell v Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 the California Supreme Court decided that a plaintiff’s recovery for past medical expenses is limited to the amount paid for the medical expenses after any contracted-for discounts...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Weekly Law Resume - May 9, 2013: A Single Statutory Settlement Offer Made to Multiple Plaintiffs in a Wrongful Death Suit is Valid

May 14, 2013, 9:09 am

≫ Next: Weekly Law Resume - June 13, 2013: Expert Witness Fee Recovery Runs From Rejection of First of Plaintiff’s Multiple Statutory Settlement Offers

≪ Previous: White Paper: The Other Shoe Drops – Corenbaum Answers Questions Raised by Howell

$

0

0

Amy Jo McDaniel, et al. v. Loyd Richard Asuncion Court of Appeal, Fifth District (March 27, 2013) California has a statutory settlement procedure (Code of Civil Procedure § 998) by which a party may make a written offer to compromise and, if that...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Weekly Law Resume - June 13, 2013: Expert Witness Fee Recovery Runs From Rejection of First of Plaintiff’s Multiple Statutory Settlement Offers

June 21, 2013, 8:35 am

≫ Next: Weekly Law Resume - November 2013: California Court Finds 10:1 as Maximum Constitutionally Defensible Ratio Between Punitive and Compensatory Damages

≪ Previous: Weekly Law Resume - May 9, 2013: A Single Statutory Settlement Offer Made to Multiple Plaintiffs in a Wrongful Death Suit is Valid

$

0

0

Raymond Martinez, et al. v. Brownco Construction Company, Inc. - California Supreme Court (June 10, 2013)- California’s statutory settlement procedure (Code of Civil Procedure §998) permits a party to make a written offer to compromise and, if...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Weekly Law Resume - November 2013: California Court Finds 10:1 as Maximum Constitutionally Defensible Ratio Between Punitive and Compensatory Damages

November 25, 2013, 2:28 pm

≫ Next: Communications Between Public Officials Using Private Cell Phones or Email Accounts Are Not Public Records Requiring Public Access

≪ Previous: Weekly Law Resume - June 13, 2013: Expert Witness Fee Recovery Runs From Rejection of First of Plaintiff’s Multiple Statutory Settlement Offers

$

0

0

Thomas Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company - Court of Appeal, Second District (August 29, 2013) - The imposition of punitive damages by a jury has been one of the least predictable, most subjective aspects of civil litigation for...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Communications Between Public Officials Using Private Cell Phones or Email Accounts Are Not Public Records Requiring Public Access

April 7, 2014, 1:48 pm

≫ Next: Asbestos Alert: Paulus v Crane Co.

≪ Previous: Weekly Law Resume - November 2013: California Court Finds 10:1 as Maximum Constitutionally Defensible Ratio Between Punitive and Compensatory Damages

$

0

0

City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Ted Smith, Real Party) - Sixth District Court of Appeal, Action # H039498 (Filed Mar. 27, 2014) 2014 WL 1254821 ____Cal.App.4th____ - The California Public Records Act, Government Code...
By: Thomas LoSavio

---

Asbestos Alert: Paulus v Crane Co.

April 8, 2014, 7:41 am

≫ Next: Limited Liability Company Members May Be Held Liable After a “De Facto” Dissolution of the Entity

≪ Previous: Communications Between Public Officials Using Private Cell Phones or Email Accounts Are Not Public Records Requiring Public Access

$

0

0

Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, Action # B246505 (Filed Feb. 21, 2014, modified Mar. 24, 2014) 2014 WL 1157284 ____Cal.App.4th____ - Sufficiency of Expert Testimony to Prove Causation; Bankruptcy Trust Damage Offset - In...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Limited Liability Company Members May Be Held Liable After a “De Facto” Dissolution of the Entity

November 19, 2014, 9:47 am

≫ Next: Subcontractor Performing Services may be Liable in Strict Liability For Purchasing and Installing Defective Products in Fulfilling its Contract

≪ Previous: Asbestos Alert: Paulus v Crane Co.

$

0

0

Court Of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (October 7, 2014)- One of the advantages of the Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) structure is, not surprisingly, that it generally limits the liabilities of its Members. One exception to that general...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Subcontractor Performing Services may be Liable in Strict Liability For Purchasing and Installing Defective Products in Fulfilling its Contract

January 18, 2016, 12:48 pm

≫ Next: Asbestos Alert: Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts and Legislation

≪ Previous: Limited Liability Company Members May Be Held Liable After a “De Facto” Dissolution of the Entity

$

0

0

Jovana Hernandezcueva v. E. F. Brady Company, Inc. - Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four (December 22, 2015) - The doctrine of strict liability is ordinarily inapplicable to transactions whose primary objective is...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Asbestos Alert: Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts and Legislation

April 28, 2016, 4:18 pm

≫ Next: Component Parts Doctrine not Applicable to Products Used in Manufacturing Process That are not Incorporated into a Different Finished Product

≪ Previous: Subcontractor Performing Services may be Liable in Strict Liability For Purchasing and Installing Defective Products in Fulfilling its Contract

$

0

0

When asbestos litigation became extremely costly to defend, to settle and to pay judgments, companies began filing for protection under the Bankruptcy laws. In the three decades since Johns Manville and UNR Industries filed the first asbestos...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Component Parts Doctrine not Applicable to Products Used in Manufacturing Process That are not Incorporated into a Different Finished Product

June 30, 2016, 9:01 am

≫ Next: Insurer Liable for Mandatory Double Damages for Failure to Reimburse a Medicare Advantage Organization for Medicare Benefits It Paid to Tort Victim

≪ Previous: Asbestos Alert: Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts and Legislation

$

0

0

Flavio Ramos, et al. v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc., et al. - California Supreme Court (June 23, 2016) - In cases of claimed injury from asbestos exposure, the component parts doctrine was designed to provide protection to the supplier of a...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Insurer Liable for Mandatory Double Damages for Failure to Reimburse a Medicare Advantage Organization for Medicare Benefits It Paid to Tort Victim

October 25, 2016, 3:08 pm

≫ Next: Asbestos Alert: Government Contractor Defense Available to Broker Which Arranged for Asbestos-Containing Insulation to Be Provided to Navy

≪ Previous: Component Parts Doctrine not Applicable to Products Used in Manufacturing Process That are not Incorporated into a Different Finished Product

$

0

0

Humana Medical Plan, Inc. v Western Heritage Insurance Company ____ F.3d ____ 2016 WL 4169120 (11th Circuit, August 8, 2016) - The federal Medicare and Medicaid Acts have been called “among the most completely impenetrable texts within human...
By: Thomas LoSavio

Asbestos Alert: Government Contractor Defense Available to Broker Which Arranged for Asbestos-Containing Insulation to Be Provided to Navy

December 5, 2016, 10:20 am

≫ Next: Trial Court Committed Error in Excluding Evidence of Future Affordable Care Act Benefits in Medical Malpractice Case

≪ Previous: Insurer Liable for Mandatory Double Damages for Failure to Reimburse a Medicare Advantage Organization for Medicare Benefits It Paid to Tort Victim

$

0

0

California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District (November 22, 2016) - The Government Contractor defense is available in asbestos lawsuits brought against manufacturers and suppliers of military hardware and equipment. The defense protects the...
By: Thomas LoSavio

---

Trial Court Committed Error in Excluding Evidence of Future Affordable Care Act Benefits in Medical Malpractice Case

May 5, 2017, 9:56 am

≪ Previous: Asbestos Alert: Government Contractor Defense Available to Broker Which Arranged for Asbestos-Containing Insulation to Be Provided to Navy

$

0

0

Cuevas v. Contra Costa County - First Appellate District, Division One (April 27, 2017) - In an ordinary personal injury lawsuit, a defendant may not introduce evidence of amounts the plaintiff received from insurance covering the injuries. This...
By: Thomas LoSavio