Blog

Statute Requiring Automatic Revocation of Ex-Spouse’s Primary Beneficiary Designation In Life Insurance Policy Does Not Violate Contracts Clause Of The Constitution

Posted by Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Aug 12th 2018

Statute Requiring Automatic Revocation of Ex-Spouse’s Primary Beneficiary Designation In Life Insurance Policy Does Not Violate Contracts Clause Of The Constitution
n Sveen v. Melin (No. 16-1432, filed June 11, 2018) (“Sveen”), the United States Supreme Court held that a statute which automatically revoked life insurance beneficiary designations following the policyholder’s divorce did not violate the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. (U.S. Const. Art. I § 10, cl. 1.)In 2002, the Minnesota Legislature passed a statute that automatically revokes the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of life insurance policy if the policy is purchas
Read more

Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

Posted by Law Firm of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Aug 12th 2018

Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision
In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee.In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in S
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

Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable
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

Employee Barred By Two-Year Statute of Limitations Period From Bringing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

Posted by Credit to Haight, Brown Bonesteel on Aug 12th 2018

Employee Barred By Two-Year Statute of Limitations Period From Bringing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim
In Wassmann v. South Orange County Community College District, No. G053411, published June 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee was barred from bringing an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim by the two-year Statute of Limitations Period.On March 29, 2010, following a series of disputes between Ms. Wassmann, a tenured librarian, and several South Orange County Community College District (the District) employees, the District issued a Notice to Correct Def
Read more

Direct Legal Malpractice Claims by Insurance Carriers

Posted by Jonathan Krol on Aug 12th 2018

Direct Legal Malpractice Claims by Insurance Carriers
Legal Professional Liability NewsletterJuly 16, 2018Even well-established doctrines gradually change with the times — this we know. Legal malpractice jurisprudence is no different. One facet of legal malpractice claims that has undergone significant transformation in recent decades is the privity requirement. The principle of privity has traditionally been a staple of legal malpractice claims: it requires the existence of an attorney-client relationship before an action against the attorney may
Read more