California's summary judgment statute was amended effective Jan. 1, 2012 to allow -- for the first time -- "adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, or an issue of duty."   See the new sub-sections of 437c pasted below. 

Prior to the amendment, a party could move for summary adjudication of (1) one or more causes of action, (2) affirmative defenses, (3) claims for damages, or (4) issues of duty.  The only option to adjudicate issues was through a motion in limine.  The new procedure requires a stipulation, but there are definitely situations where both sides may find it economical or otherwise preferable to know the judge's ruling on a key issue well before trial.  
 
The new provisions are experimental: they sunset on 1/1/15 unless the Legislature acts to keep them.

In Transport Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., Case No. A122573 (Cal. Ct. App., January 13, 2012) (First Appellate District), the California Court of Appeal held that a ceding insurer’s substantive arguments regarding an improper jury instruction were barred on appeal under the procedural doctrine of "invited error."

Attachments:

Transport Ins Co Case

[ ]

239 Kb

In R.R. Street & Co., Inc. v. Transport Ins. Co. (9th Cir., Sept. 2, 2011) the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal district court (1) properly applied the Colorado River abstention doctrine in dismissing a federal coverage action that mirrored a progressing state court action, (2) properly applied the Wilton/Brillhart doctrine in remanding a separate declaratory judgment action to state court to avoid piecemeal litigation; and (3) improperly applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Attachments:

RR Street

[ ]

133 Kb

In Fairbanks et al. v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. et al., No. B216742 (July 13, 2011), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) upheld a lower court decision denying class certification to a group of plaintiffs alleging fraudulent and misleading marketing of universal life insurance policies.

Attachments:

Fairbanks opinion

[ ]

187 Kb