Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/27] Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump
In plaintiff's suit against her deceased husband's insurer for workers' compensation death benefits, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and remanded where: 1) the treating physician's opinion was based on a reliable foundation and, therefore, legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict; 2) the trial court's omission of the but-for component in the jury charge constitutes reversible error; and 3) an insurance carrier is entitled to have a jury determine the disputed amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for which it is liable.

More...

Family Law

[08/31] In re A.M.
An order declaring a father's minor children dependents of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(f) is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports the court's section 300(f) jurisdictional finding that the father caused the death of a minor child through neglect; and 2) after considering all of the evidence and having the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses, the juvenile court was in the best position to make the credibility findings concerning the father's statements.

[08/30] In re R.R.
In dependency proceedings, juvenile court's order declaring petitioner-father's daughter a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(b) based on the father's past and current drug use, is affirmed where: 1) the juvenile court did not err in denying father's motion to quash subpoena of his hospitalization; 2) any error in not hearing the motion to quash was harmless because as a matter of substantive law the motion would have been denied as father's hospital records were admissible; 3) father's claim that his right to privacy was violated by dissemination of his medical records is rejected; 4) substantial evidence supported the finding that the daughter was a person described by section 300; and 5) juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering monitored visits.

More...