Case Summaries

Probate Trusts

[06/26] Murphy v. Murphy
A probate court judgment finding plaintiff entitled to a constructive trust over one-half interest of decedent's real and personal property existing on the date of his death is reversed on collateral estoppel grounds where: 1) prior to the decedent's death, a probate court previously issued an order on behalf of decedent, authorizing the decedent's conservator to execute a living trust and pour-over will to implement an estate plan which effectively disinherited plaintiff; and 2) a careful balance of all the relevant factors supported that principles of collateral estoppel should serve to bar plaintiff's subsequent causes of action.

[06/25] Safai v. Safai
In a case involving a dispute over whether a minor's actions triggered the "no contest clause" contained in a trust instrument, the court of appeals finds that the minor's act of signing the "minor's consent" portion of an ex parte application for appointment of guardian ad litem did not equate to "voluntarily" participating in a trust contest, an act which a minor is legally incapable of pursuing by their own volition.

[06/24] IN Funeral Directors Ins. Trust v. Benefit Actuaries, Inc.
In a suit alleging violation of fiduciary duties under ERISA and breaches of common law duties to plaintiff by providing it with bad advice and failing to recommend measures that would stave off insolvency, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not provide evidence that defendants promised to administer the Trust in accordance with certain state law or that defendants knew the Trust would rely on it to follow the Michigan statute; 2) plaintiff failed to show that defendant assumed a duty to provide actuarial advice; 3) defendant did not breach a duty by failing to advise trustees about the risk of raising the specific stop loss deductible and about the Trust's poor financial situation; and 4) defendant did not breach a duty by failing to recommend that the Trust maintain adequate reserves.

[06/20] Talbot v. Hustwit
Judgment entered against defendants on a guaranty agreement after lender foreclosed on real property securing a loan made to a trust structured by defendants is affirmed where: 1) case law has uniformly held the requirements for a deficiency judgment under Code of Civil Procedure 580a inapplicable to guarantors; and 2) considering the manner in which defendants structured the trust arrangement to detach from debts owed by the trust, there was ample basis for finding them not principal obligors to the loan, but true guarantors.

[05/15] Miller v. Campbell
In a fees dispute brought by a law firm against the executor of an estate after the probate court refused to award a category of fees associated with services rendered for the executor's personal matters, grant of executor's motions in limine to exclude all evidence, resulting in dismissal of the case, is reversed where: 1) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to bar the law firm's claim of fees against the executor personally; and 2) in light of the evidence, the trial court erroneously ruled that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the law firm's quantum meruit claim.

More...

Insurance Law

[07/03] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.

[07/02] Sgro v. Danone Waters of N. Am., Inc.
In an ERISA action arising from a denial of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) dismissal of state law claims was proper as defendant's disability plan is governed by ERISA, but the dismissal should have been without prejudice; 2) a California insurance regulation does not require defendants to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of copying the medical records that defendant-insurer/administrator requested, as that regulation is preempted by ERISA; 3) defendants did not violate ERISA's regulation on "claims procedures" by requiring documentation from plaintiff regarding his claim; and 4) a remand was required in part as to dismissal of a claim that defendants violated ERISA section 1132(c)(1) for failing to turn over certain documents.

[07/02] Wakkinen v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.
In an ERISA action, summary judgment for defendant upholding its denial of long-term disability benefits under an employer-offered plan is affirmed where substantial evidence supported plan administrator's finding that claimant was not "continuously disabled" through the 180 days of his elimination period as defined within the policy in dispute.

[06/30] Stamp v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
Plan administrators of an employee benefits plan governed under ERISA may reasonably conclude that an insured, killed in a one-car collision with a tree while driving with BAC of 3 times the legal limit, did not die as a result of an "accident" for purposes of his Accidental Death and Dismemberment life insurance policies.

[06/27] Assoc. Indus. of Kentucky, Inc. v. U.S. Liab. Ins. Group
In an action for declaratory judgment as to whether defendant had a duty to defend plaintiff against several lawsuits in state court and a duty to cover any liabilities that might arise from the lawsuits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant had not duty to defend any lawsuits arising from the offering of an insurance program due to an exclusion in the contract between the parties.

More...

Health Law

[07/03] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.

[07/03] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

[07/02] Conservatorship of David L.
A prospective conservatee who requests substitute appointed counsel must be given a full opportunity to state the reasons for his request in accordance with People v. Marsden 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970), and a trial court's failure in this case to afford defendant a full opportunity to state his reasons for requesting substitute counsel here violated his right to due process of law.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

[07/02] Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In the context of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) failure-to-accommodate claims and the general rule that it is the responsibility of the individual with a disability to inform the employer that an accommodation is needed, the circuit court rules that an employer has a duty reasonably to accommodate an employee's disability if the disability is obvious?which is to say, if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled.

More...

Elder Law

[06/30] Sanders v. Lawson
The attorney's fees provision of the Elder Abuse Act does not authorize the award of trustee fees as costs.

[05/13] Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

[05/05] Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.

[03/11] Budnick v. Town of Carefree
In an action raising, inter alia, a claim that defendant-town violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) by denying plaintiffs a Special Use Permit (SUP) to build a multi-level continuing-care retirement community in the town, summary judgment against plaintiffs on the FHAA claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to establish a discrimination claim under any of the theories of disparate treatment, disparate impact, or a failure to make reasonable accommodations. Potential residents of a retirement community do not presently qualify as disabled under the FHAA simply because some of them will become disabled as they age.

[03/10] Med. Liab. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alan Curtis LLC
In an action brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its duties to defend and indemnify defendants against claims in an Arkansas state court action, summary judgment determining such duties is affirmed where the district court did not err by deciding that: 1) the only claim in the underlying lawsuit covered under insurer's policy was an estate's breach of contract claim against nursing home facility owner; 2) insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify owner on that claim and therefore also a duty to defend it on all of the estate's claims against it; and 3) insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify appellant-employee of the nursing home's management company.

More...