Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog

California Court of Appeal Rejects Insurance Policy “Resident Exclusion” Denying Recovery to Car Accident Victim

October 22, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether an injured passenger can recover from the driver at fault under a “resident exclusion” in the driver’s automobile insurance policy. The driver and passenger were unrelated but lived together, and the insurance company attempted to deny coverage to the injured passenger under the terms of the policy. The court addressed the public policy rationale behind insurance exclusions and evaluated the legality of this particular exclusion.

The facts of this case center on a car accident in which Hung Chu, while driving his roommate, Tu Pham, turned left in front of a vehicle driven by Krystal Nguyen. Mr. Pham was injured in the accident and brought a lawsuit against Mr. Chu, seeking to recover $333,300.

Mercury Casualty Co. insured Mr. Chu and asked for a determination by the court that Mr. Chu’s policy did not require payment for the judgment. The basis was that the policy contained an exclusion for individuals who lived in the same household as the insured person. The exclusion was termed a “resident exclusion.” Mercury also asked the court to award it the attorney fees and costs associated with defending Mr. Chu against Mr. Pham’s lawsuit. The trial court upheld the insurance policy’s resident exclusion and determined that the insurance company did not need to cover the judgment obtained by Mr. Pham. Mr. Pham then appealed.

California Court of Appeal Holds Truck Driver Parked Illegally May be Liable for Teenage Driver’s Injuries

October 21, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether a teenager was at fault for an accident involving a truck parked illegally along a Southern California highway. The trucker had violated the Vehicle Code by parking illegally, although the trial court had ruled that the trucker’s actions were not the substantial cause of the accident.In this case, an experienced truck driver, David Hernandez, pulled his truck, consisting of a tractor and flatbed trailer, to the side of the Pacific Coast Highway to rest. Because of the narrow shoulder on the right side of the northbound lane, Mr. Hernandez decided to park in an area next to the southbound lane. He positioned his truck headed north, toward oncoming traffic.

After taking a nap, at around 8:39 p.m. Mr. Hernandez crossed both the southbound and northbound lanes to reenter the highway. During this maneuver, a southbound vehicle struck Mr. Hernandez’s trailer. Eighteen-year-old Joshua David was driving the vehicle, and 18-year-old Natalie Pierson was in the passenger seat. There was no evidence that Mr. David applied the brakes before the collision.

California Court of Appeal Holds Release of Liability Bars Negligence Action in Kickboxing Class Injury

October 15, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a negligence action before the California Court of Appeal, the issue was whether an instructor at a gym increased the risk inherent in the activity and acted in a grossly negligent manner. The court addressed the doctrine of assumption of the risk, evaluating whether the risk of injury was inherent to the sport.

Tonya Honeycutt was injured during a kickboxing class when an instructor at Meridian Sports Club, LLC (Meridian) assisted her in a particular movement. Ms. Honeycutt brought a personal injury action, alleging negligence and gross negligence against Meridian. She claimed that she was injured while a guest at Meridian, since the kickboxing class instructor negligently manipulated her body, causing her knee to snap. Her injury resulted in pain and required surgery. Ms. Honeycutt contended the instructor’s conduct constituted gross negligence. Ms. Honeycutt appealed the summary judgment entered for Meridian.

On appeal, Ms. Honeycutt contended that there was a triable issue of fact because the instructor grabbed her leg, increasing the risk inherent to the kickboxing class. She alleged that this negated the application of the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk. Ms. Honeycutt also contended that the instructor acted with gross negligence, rendering ineffective the signed release of liability Ms. Honeycutt signed.

California Court of Appeal Affirms Judgment in Favor of Insured When Uninsured/Underinsured Liability Coverage Limit Had Been Met

October 14, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a motorcycle accident case, Christina Elliott appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against Geico Indemnity Company. Mrs. Elliott’s husband was struck and killed by the defendant, who had been driving while intoxicated. While Mrs. Elliott recovered damages from the defendant’s insurer and the restaurant owner’s insurer, she sought additional damages under Geico’s underinsured/uninsured motorist policy. At issue was whether Geico was required to pay Mrs. Elliott, under the underinsured motorist liability coverage of her policy, in addition to the recovery she had already obtained from the defendant’s insurer and the restaurant owner’s insurer.The facts demonstrated that the defendant, Lesa Shaffer, was returning home from her job at a restaurant and bar in Nevada City. She had been drinking, and her truck crossed the center line and entered the deceased’s lane of travel. His motorcycle was struck by Ms. Shaffer’s vehicle, and he died.

Ms. Shaffer’s insurer paid $15,000, and the restaurant owner’s general liability insurer paid $250,000 to Mrs. Elliott, after the settlement of a wrongful death action brought against Ms. Shaffer and the restaurant owner. Mrs. Elliot then submitted an insurance claim to Geico for $85,000, which is the underinsured motorist coverage limit minus the $15,000 recovered from Ms. Shaffer’s insurance company.

California Court of Appeals Holds Landowner Has Duty to Warn Patrons of Potential Dangers When Exiting Restaurant Off Pacific Coast Highway

October 8, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent appeal, the California Court of Appeals determined that a restaurant operator has a duty to warn patrons leaving the premises when a right turn is required to be made when exiting the restaurant. The court addressed issues of premises liability and the duty owed by a landowner when patrons may be exposed to offsite injury.

In this case, the plaintiffs were the parents of Joseph Annocki, who was killed in a vehicle accident by a patron leaving Geoffrey’s Restaurant in Malibu. Mr. Annocki had been driving a motorcycle on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu when Terry Turner exited the parking lot of the restaurant and collided with his motorcycle.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their third amended complaint for damages, based on the death of Mr. Annocki. The third amended complaint alleged wrongful death and dangerous condition of public property claims. The trial court held that Defendant Peterson Enterprises, LLC did not owe a duty to Mr. Annocki.

California Court of Appeals Holds Cumulative Injuries within the State Provide Legitimate Relationship to Invoke Worker’s Compensation Laws

October 7, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeals determined the state had a legitimate interest in a work-related injury suffered by an employee of a California corporation. A former basketball player suffered injuries while playing for a California team and then intermittently playing in the state while employed by other teams. The issue before the court was whether the state had a sufficient relationship with the player’s injuries to make the application of California’s workers’ compensation laws reasonable.

The petitioner, the New York Knicks, is a professional basketball team in the National Basketball Association. They filed a petition for a writ of review against the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Board), the Los Angeles Clippers, the Atlanta Hawks, the Insurance Company of North America, and Durand Macklin. The NBA challenged the jurisdiction of the Board concerning a claim for accumulated injuries by Mr. Macklin, a former NBA basketball player from 1981-1984.

Mr. Macklin allegedly suffered cumulative trauma injury from his work as a professional basketball player for multiple NBA teams. The period of trauma ran for four years, and Mr. Macklin played for the Atlanta Hawks, the Albany Patroons, and the Los Angeles Clippers over the course of this period.

California Court of Appeal Affirms Strict Adherence to Jurisdictional Restrictions in Appeal from Car Accident Case

September 29, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In an appeal stemming from an automobile accident, the California Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues of jurisdictional deadlines following service of notice of entry of judgment. This appeal centers on a rear-end automobile accident case. The plaintiff, Ms. Keely Maroney, turned right and “double parked” while her passenger used an ATM. The defendant, Asaf Iacobsohn, was driving and did not see her vehicle until it was too late to avoid a collision.

A jury tried the case and returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Ms. Maroney. She was found 40 percent at fault, and the defendant, Mr. Iacobsohn, was found 60 percent at fault. The plaintiff’s judgment was rendered in the amount of $44,070.

After entry of judgment, Mr. Iacobsohn moved to recover his costs based on Ms. Maroney’s rejection of his offer to compromise.

California Court of Appeals Affirms Workers’ Compensation Act Applies When Substantial Cause of Injury is Work-Related

September 25, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeals case, the court addressed whether a claim for an injury, potentially separate from a contributing work-related condition, can be brought against an employer in a civil action. Typically, work-related injuries are covered by the California Workers’ Compensation Act, and injured employees are barred from bringing an action in tort against the employer. In this case, Lario Melendrez worked for 24 years for Ameron International Corporation (Ameron), where he was exposed to asbestos. In 2011, Mr. Melendrez died of asbestos-related mesothelioma. Mr. Melendrez’s survivors filed a complaint for wrongful death against Ameron, alleging that Mr. Melendrez had been exposed to workplace asbestos and also asbestos at home, since he was permitted to take waste or scrap pipe home. In the 1970s, Mr. Melendrez would bring pipe home as frequently as possible to make flowerpots and add to his patio. Ameron left the state in 1985, and Mr. Melendrez’s employment ended. Years later, he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. The cause of this mesothelioma was determined to be his exposure to asbestos.

California Court of Appeals Holds Plaintiffs Entitled to Costs of Proof Due to Defendants’ Failure to Admit Requests for Admissions

September 18, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

A recent case before the California Court of Appeal addressed whether it was reasonable for the defendant to reasonably believe he would prevail at trial on the issue of liability stemming from a car accident. While the defendant claimed he entered an intersection during a yellow light, the plaintiffs and substantial evidence suggested that the defendant ran a red light. The defendant failed to admit this fact in response to requests for admissions (RFA), and the plaintiffs sought to recover the costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420.

Timothy Grace and his wife, Michelle Blair, prevailed in a personal injury action against Levik Mansourian and his mother, Satina Mansourian. They then filed a motion to recover the costs of proof, based on the defendants’ failure to admit specific information in response to requests for admissions. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

In this case, the defendant was driving into an intersection when he hit a car driven by the plaintiff. While the defendant claimed he thought he could pass through the intersection while the light was yellow, an eyewitness told the defendants’ insurance company that the defendant ran a red light.

California Court of Appeals Reverses Judgment in Case of Insurer Bad Faith Following Car Accident

September 18, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed an issue of the “bad faith” pursuit of an insurance claim. Bad faith claims refer to tort claims against an insurance company for acting illegally, performing a bad act, or failing to act in good faith.

In this personal injury and wrongful death case, defendant Cy Tapia, a teenager, was driving a vehicle that crashed, resulting in eventual fatal injuries to his passenger, Cory Driscoll. Before Mr. Driscoll died, he and his mother filed an action for damages against Mr. Tapia. (For reference herein, Mr. Driscoll and his mother are referred to as “plaintiff.”)

Mr. Tapia’s grandfather owned the vehicle, and Mr. Tapia’s sister had been issued an auto policy. The insurer issued the policy and had offered to settle the action for the policy limits, $100,000.00.