 | Daily Opinion Summaries
California Appellate Districts |  | | January 30, 2012 FindLaw.com Daily Opinion Summaries Newsletter |
Table of Contents LATEST SUMMARIES Criminal Law & Procedure
• People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co.
Evidence, Government Law, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law
• Bernard v. City of Oakland
Civil Procedure, Consumer Protection Law, Insurance Law
• M & F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Insurance Managers, Inc.
Get free FindLaw Case Law Feeds - Auto Notifications From 80+ Courts! FindLaw's case summaries are copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval. You may, however, freely redistribute this e-mail in its entirety. To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com.
LATEST SUMMARIES Criminal Law & Procedure
People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co., No. B220199
On a surety's appeal of an order denying its motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bond and to exonerate bail, the trial court's order denying the surety's motion is affirmed, where consolidation of cases that led to the inclusion of a robbery count filed in one case with the charges filed in the case in which the surety had posted bail did not materially alter the surety's risk and did not exonerate the bond. Read more... Evidence, Government Law, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law
Bernard v. City of Oakland, No. A127853
In a case in which retired firefighters or their surviving spouses contended that the City of Oakland and Union City were required to make additional payments toward their health care coverage pursuant to an amendment to the Public Employee Medical Hospital Care Act, the trial court's denial of mandamus relief and dismissal of the actions are affirmed, where: 1) it was appropriate to defer to the health care plan administrator's interpretation of the statutory language in dispute; 2) there was no error in allowing a witness to testify as an expert, and even if there was error, it was harmless; and 3) there was no merit to an assertion that a contracting agency that elects to make increasing contributions under Government code section 22892(c) must also comply with the minimum contribution provisions of 22892(b). Read more...
Civil Procedure, Consumer Protection Law, Insurance Law
M & F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Insurance Managers, Inc., No. D056098
In an action by owners and operators of commercial fishing companies alleging violations of the Unfair Competition Law predicated on violations of the Insurance Code, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed and the matter is remanded, where: 1) the plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution for insurance lawfully placed from admitted carriers; 2) the plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution of premiums paid for nonadmitted coverage; 3) the plaintiffs were barred from recovering restitution of any broker fees based on a violation of Insurance Code section 1764.1 occurring more than four years before they filed suit; 4) the trial court should have granted one defendant's motion for nonsuit for lack of an agency relationship; 5) the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend to add additional parties; and 6) the plaintiffs' entitlement to prejudgment interest was subject to the discretion of the trial court. Read more...
 Feedback
We value your comments! Please take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail. | Subscription Information
Click here to subscribe to a FindLaw Newsletter. To unsubscribe, click here. | Advertising Information
For more information about advertising in FindLaw Newsletters, click here. | | 800 W. California Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 |
| | |
You are currently subscribed to calapp-caselaw as: 4bloggermail@gmail.com .
To manage your newsletter accounts go to: http://newsletters.findlaw.com/sub/review-account.jsp
