Court Upholds California Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Enforce Insurance Regulations
Posted by Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Sep 28th 2018
In PacifiCare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Jones (No. G053914, filed 9/20/18), a California appeals court upheld the California Insurance Commissioner’s authority to impose a $173 million penalty on a health insurer based on a finding of multiple violations of the State’s Insurance Code and insurance regulations.In PacifiCare, the Insurance Commissioner, Dave Jones, imposed the fines after finding 900,000 violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code §§ 790, et seq., “UIPA”). Insu
Read more
CALIFORNIA'S BOLD NEW DATA PRIVACY LAW: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO COMPLY
Posted by Anne Kelley on Sep 14th 2018
2018 has been a pivotal year for consumer data protection, with sweeping new laws
being passed to ensure increased consumer data privacy around the world. In May,
Europe’s General Data Protection Law, or GDPR, took effect. In June, the California
Legislature passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), a bold new
digital data privacy law that is the first of its kind in the United States. The California
law becomes effective on January 1, 2020, and will launch a new era of d
Read more
There Are No Small Conflicts: Due to Undisclosed, Known Conflict, Supreme Court Agrees that Engagement Agreement Is Unenforceable but Keeps Door Open to Law Firm Receiving Compensation Under Equitable Principles
Posted by Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Sep 12th 2018
In Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (8/30/2018 No. S232946), the California Supreme Court held that the conflict of interest of the law firm (“Sheppard Mullin”) rendered its engagement agreement, including an arbitration provision, with its client (“J-M”) unenforceable because the agreement violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”). Although the agreement included an “advance” conflict waiver, the Court deemed it ineffective because She
Read more
Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable
Posted by Law Firm of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Aug 12th 2018
In Padda v. Superior Court (GI Excellence), No. E070522, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, recently held that a trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ request for a trial continuance where their key expert witness suddenly became ill twelve days before trial and before his deposition had been taken.The case arose from an employment-related contract dispute between two Gastroenterologists (hereafter “Petitioners”) and Plaintiff/Cros
Read more