Case Summaries

Probate Trusts

[06/08] Cory v. Toscano
Trial court judgment that a proposed petition to determine the terms of the trust did not violate the trust's no contest clause is affirmed where the handwritten notations on the trust instrument were an attempt to amend the trust and were not part of the original trust agreement, and thus a challenge to its validity is not a contest under Probate Code sec. 21305(a)(3).

[06/05] Ditta v. Conte
In a breach of fiduciary duty action involving the removal of a trustee of an an inter vivos trust, court of appeals' judgment holding that the case was time-barred is reversed and remanded where a statutory limitations period is applicable to suits seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty but no statute of limitations period restricts a court's discretion to remove a trustee.

[06/04] Sargiss v. Magarelli
In an action against the estate of Plaintiff's ex-husband claiming that the decedent misrepresented his assets in a prior divorce proceeding, the dismissal of the complaint is reversed, where the statute of limitations was tolled prior to Plaintiff's discovery of the alleged fraud.

[05/21] Estate of Beckel
In a probate action, trial court judgment limiting the distribution of an estate to surviving first cousins and the children of predeceased first cousins is reversed where surviving issue includes all lineal descendants of all generations and therefore the decedent's estate must be divided into as many shares as there are first cousins who survived the decedent and first cousins who predeceased the decedent but left surviving issue of any generation.

[05/15] San Diego County Health and Human Serv. Div. v. Amanda B.
In a conservatorship action, postjudgment order denying defendant's petition for a rehearing on her status as a conservatee is reversed and remanded where the court erred in denying defendant's petition for rehearing as to her status as a conservatee and not considering the petition on the merits as the court relied on an unreasonable interpretation of Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 5364.

More...

Insurance Law

[07/02] Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. United Fire & Casualty Co.
In an action brought to determine the priority of coverage between certain insurance policies, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) defendant's demand for plaintiff to be involved in the defense of anticipated suits by injured parties is enough to create an actual controversy and give plaintiff the right to bring a declaratory judgment action to determine priority of coverage; and 2) the court did not err in determining that defendant's policy provided primary coverage for the accident and that its umbrella policy would also be triggered before the policy issued by plaintiff came into play.

[07/01] Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. v. DG&G Co., Inc.
In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the cotton was in defendant's custody, control and care at the time of the property-damaging occurrence and thus the control and care exclusion in the insurance policy issued by plaintiff applied; and 2) the damage to the cotton was not covered by defendant's agribusiness insurance policy as the defects, errors and omissions exclusion in the policy applies and precludes coverage of the loss.

[07/01] Bristol West Ins. Co. v. Wawanesa Mutual Ins. Co.
In a dispute involving the interpretation of an insurance contract, district court judgment is reversed where the plain language of the Out of State Coverage clause in the policy makes specific reference to any accident that occurs out of state, and does not focus on the limits of the out of the state financial responsibility law, and thus the insurance policy necessarily expands the amount of liability coverage in this case since the accident occurred in New Brunswick.

[06/30] People v. Coventry First LLC
In an enforcement action by the state claiming that Defendant life settlement providers concealed commissions to brokers, who persuaded their clients to accept Defendants' offers, the denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss or compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the state was not bound by arbitration agreements signed by Defendants' clients; and 2) the complaint stated a claim that Defendants knew that the life settlement brokers' conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

[06/29] Krolnik v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
In a dispute involving disability insurance benefits, district court judgment is vacated in part and remanded where there is a dispute about whether plaintiff can work even with all of his physical and mental problems, and the court failed to weigh all the medical evidence in order to make an independent decision on the issue and also failed to cite authority for throwing out evidence submitted by plaintiff or explain why summary judgment was apt. Judgment is affirmed to the extent it holds that defendant is subrogated to a portion of the Social Security benefits, which plaintiff must pay over to defendant.

More...

Health Law

[07/02] Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc.
In a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, district court judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the threshold jurisdictional bar of the Act against lawsuits based upon publicly disclosed allegations applied to the suit, as the allegations in the complaint about defendant's billing practices were in fact based on publicly disclosed information and plaintiff failed to show she was an original source of the information used to support the allegations.

[07/02] Milholland v. Sumner Cty. Bd. of Educ.
In an Americans with Disabilities Act action alleging that Plaintiff teacher was transferred between positions based on her arthritis, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant regarded her as disabled.

[07/01] Lafaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Group, PLLC
In an antitrust action, district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings and dismissal on grounds that state action immunity applied to all defendants is vacated and remanded where: 1) defendant Westchester County Health Care Corporation is entitled to the same status as a municipality for purposes of the state action immunity analysis, and the behavior by WCHCC was a foreseeable consequence of the authorizations in WCHCC's enabling statute; and 2) a private party is not exempted from the active supervision prong of the Midcal test simply by virtue of purporting to act pursuant to a contract with a governmental entity that itself would be entitled to state action immunity, and on remand the private defendants-doctors must therefore show that they were actively supervised by WCHCC in order to share in its immunity.

[06/30] Grammer v. John J. Kane Regional Centers
In a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments, district court judgment finding no right of action under the statutes and dismissing the case is reversed and remanded where it is clear that Congress intended to create individual rights in drafting and adopting the Amendments and plaintiff's mother falls squarely within the zone of interest the provisions are meant to protect. In addition, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 provides the proper avenue for relief for the statutory provisions which plaintiff seeks to enforce, as defendant has failed to demonstrate that Congress foreclosed that option by adopting another, more comprehensive enforcement scheme.

[06/30] Mednik v. State Dept. of Health Care Serv.
Trial court order denying plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's exclusion from the Medi-Cal program amounted to disbarment and he therefore has a liberty interest at stake; 2) plaintiff has not identified any aspect of the administrative appeal procedure in connection with his temporary suspension and denial of reenrollment which fell short of the demands of due process; and 3) there is no support for plaintiff's allegation that the trial court lacked the complete administrative record.

More...

Elder Law

[06/23] Gdowski v. Gdowski
Trial court issuance of a protective order against defendant under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act is reversed where: 1) a protective order under the Elder Abuse Act may issue on the basis of evidence of past abuse, without any particularized showing that the wrongful acts will be continued or repeated; and 2) the trial court erred in basing its decision in issuing the protective order on counsel's conduct rather than on substantial evidence.

[05/20] Health Care Industry Liability Ins. Program v. Momence Meadows Nursing Center, Inc.
In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, district court judgment finding that plaintiff had no duty to defend defendant is affirmed where the wrongdoings for which the parties in the underlying suit are attempting to hold defendant liable for are the filing of false claims and unlawful employment actions, not the injuries suffered by residents under defendant's care, and none of the policy provisions cover such claims.

[04/29] People v. Henning
Conviction for financial elder abuse is affirmed where: 1) the jury was given only the erroneous portion of CALCRIM No. 1804 regarding corroboration, and was thus not instructed correctly that the corroborating writing must be false and was not instructed as to the other possible methods of corroboration; but 2) the error was manifestly harmless under any standard of review.

[02/19] Golden Years Homestead, Inc. v. Buckland
In a suit by a nursing home operator against Indiana State Department of Health inspectors alleging violations of its Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution and abuse of process, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) although defendants focused on certain affirmative defenses and the sufficiency of proof on the federal claims, the defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, thus the district court's order was not an improper sua sponte summary judgment on the state law claims; and 2) summary judgment was also appropriate on the merits since the state law claims required proof of malice or ulterior motive.

[02/05] Nagle v. Calumet Park
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed. Plaintiff failed to prove Defendants' discriminatory intent using either the direct or indirect methods.

More...