|
Trials and Evidence
|
|
Written by Peter Volz
|
|
Thursday, 23 August 2012 10:50 |
|
In Entin v. Superior Court (Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company), Case No. B239642 (Cal. Ct. App., August 20, 2012) (Second Appellate District), the Court of Appeal held an insured was entitled to a jury trial because the insurer’s election to pay policy proceeds pending a coverage determination did not make the insurer’s declaratory relief action “equitable in nature.”
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Trials and Evidence
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Friday, 01 July 2011 09:03 |
|
In Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Superior Court, No. B229880 (June 28, 2011), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held parties may not seek discovery regarding communications between an attorney and other attorneys or investigators working for the same firm, nor communications that contain attorney opinions even if not recorded in written form.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Trials and Evidence
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Monday, 17 August 2009 08:42 |
|
In U-Haul International, Inc. et.al v. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Company, No. CV-04-006662 (9th Cir. August 12, 2009), the Ninth Circuit affirmed that a primary insurers’ computer-generated summaries of expenses paid on claims were properly admitted as evidence of exhaustion under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, FRCP 803(6).
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Trials and Evidence
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Tuesday, 23 June 2009 16:00 |
|
In Supervalu, Inc. v. Wexford Underwriting Mgrs., No. B206501, _ Cal. Rptr.3d _, 2009 WL 1538391 (filed June 22, 2009), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, allowed parol evidence provisionally to determine ambiguity, even though the policy language was not facially ambiguous. If, in light of the extrinsic evidence, the language had been reasonably susceptible to the interpretation urged, the evidence could be admitted. However, the language here contradicted the urged interpretation, and the extrinsic evidence was therefore not admitted.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Trials and Evidence
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Wednesday, 23 April 2008 16:00 |
|
Citing only a single case, the California Supreme Court unanimously confirmed today that a party's conduct occurring between the execution of the contract and before a dispute about the meaning of the contract's terms arises is admissible to resolve ambiguities in the contract's language. In City of Hope v. Genentech, 2008 WL 1820916 (April 24, 2008), the California Supreme Court, citing Oceanside 84 Ltd. v. Fidelity Federal Bank, 56 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1449 (1997) held that the conduct of a party during this time period "may reveal what the parties understood and intended those terms to mean" and is admissible to resolve ambiguities in the terms of the contract. While this case did not concern an insurance policy, this likely does not diminish the effect of the Court's holding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
