Case Summaries

Property Law & Real Estate

[02/08] Reget v. City of La Crosse
In plaintiff's constitutional challenge to defendant-city's junk-dealer ordinance requiring him to comply with certain building and safety-code provisions and to fence his outdoor auto storage from the view of his surrounding residential neighbors, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed as plaintiff has not shown that the city has treated him differently than other similarly situated businesses.

[02/05] Sharabianlou v. Karp
In plaintiff's action seeking rescission of a commercial real estate transaction and tort damages, the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding damages to the original property owners is reversed as the trial court's award goes well beyond the types of damages permitted.

[02/04] Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles
In plaintiff's action against a county seeking a tax refund claiming that, when she received a life estate interest in a residence, no change in ownership occurred within the meaning of Article XIII A, section 2(a) of the California Constitution to trigger reassessment, judgment of the court of appeals' is reversed where: 1) under governing statutes, plaintiff had to apply for assessment reduction even though her claim presents a pure question of law; 2) the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable; 3) the county is not estopped from relying on plaintiff's failure to exhaust remedies; and 4) there was a change in ownership within the meaning of Article XIII A, section 2(a).

More...

Probate Trusts

[01/29] Estate of Artall v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev.
In the taxpayer's appeal from the tax court's approval of the IRS Commissioner's disallowance of a "qualified family-owned business interest" estate tax deduction to the taxpayer estate, the tax court's order is affirmed where the "qualified family-owned business interest" deduction of 26 U.S.C. section 2057 is available for an estate's qualifying equity or ownership interests but not for debt interests such as loans receivable.

[01/22] Charles Schwab & Co. v. Debickero
In an interpleader action by a bank seeking to determine the ownership of an IRA account held by decedent, summary judgment for the named beneficiaries of the IRA is affirmed where: 1) the surviving spouse protections in ERISA did not apply to the IRA even though some of the funds originated from an ERISA-protected pension plan, and 2) the Internal Revenue Code also did not impose automatic surviving spouse rights on IRAs similar to those protections afforded under ERISA.

[01/08] Suleman v. Sup. Ct.
A petition for a writ of mandate by plaintiff, commonly referred to in the media as the "Octomom", challenging the probate court's denial of her motion to dismiss a petition by an individual, a president of a nonprofit corporation, and the court's appointment of the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) to conduct an investigation of the family's finances is granted where: 1) the probate court erred by denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss the petition; 2) the individual seeking guardianship has no standing under Probate Code section 1510(a) as the petition seeking appointment of a guardian of the octopulets' estates should have been dismissed because he has neither pleaded ultimate facts demonstrating the plaintiff has engaged in any financial misconduct, nor alleged any other information warranting court investigation in the plaintiff's family's finances; and 3) the probate court's order for an investigation of the family's finances is vacated.

More...

Contracts

[02/08] Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
In a class action lawsuit against multiple insurance companies alleging that defendants violated a contractual promise under insurance policies to pay policyholders the "actual charges" of cancer treatments, judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) under the three-step retroactivity analysis, the presumption against retroactivity operates to bar the application of the South Carolina statute to the claims in this case; and 2) defendants' remaining arguments are meritless.

[12/11] Metro Allied Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Lin
In plaintiff's action against an insurance company for negligence and a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for failure to procure a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the judgment of the court of appeals in favor of the plaintiff is reversed and remanded is the causation standard for a claimed failure to procure insurance under a negligence theory and under the DTPA requires proof of the availability of some insurance that would have covered the plaintiff's damages.

[12/11] D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co., Ltd.
In an action brought by a general contractor seeking a defense and coverage from the commercial general liability insurer for alleged construction defects, judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the duty to indemnify is not dependent on the duty to defend and an insurer may have a duty to indemnify its insured even if the duty to defend never arises; and 2) in determining coverage, a matter dependent on the facts and circumstances of the alleged injury-causing event, parties may introduce evidence during coverage litigation to establish or refute the duty to indemnify.

More...

Commercial Law

[02/05] Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., Inc.
In plaintiff-insurer's action seeking a declaration in federal court that it was not obligated to cover any claims asserted against its insured, a raw food producer, by a manufacturer, denial of manufacturer's motion to leave to assert various crossclaims against the insured is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the manufacturer's request with respect to the products liability claim as the New Jersey Supreme Court predictably would hold that the product liability crossclaim for what is clearly economic loss sounds in contract is therefore barred by the economic loss doctrine; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the manufacturer's request for leave to assert an express indemnification crossclaim; and 3) district court's holding that the manufacturer failed to state an implied indemnification claim for third-party damages is affirmed.

[02/05] Sharabianlou v. Karp
In plaintiff's action seeking rescission of a commercial real estate transaction and tort damages, the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding damages to the original property owners is reversed as the trial court's award goes well beyond the types of damages permitted.

[02/04] Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Beazer Homes Inv., LLC
In plaintiff-insurance company's declaratory-judgment action to establish that it was not obligated to cover the costs that defendant incurred in repairing water damage to several houses that defendant had built as a general contractor, grant of 's judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel is not applicable to the case and plaintiff is free to contest whether the policies cover the costs that defendant incurred; 2) a general contractor cannot claim CGL insurance coverage for the costs it incurs in repairing houses that are subsequently damaged due to the faulty workmanship of its own subcontractors; and 3) the district court's consideration of an alleged fungus exclusion was harmless.

More...