timscotty

Appeal Court DecisionCross-defendant, the insured, challenged the interpretation of his automobile policy in the Superior Court of Alameda County (California) in its judgment that defendant, the insurer, was under no duty to defend him or to provide coverage for injuries to plaintiffs, his children.Overview: business attorneysCross-defendant was the "named insured" under an automobile liability insurance policy written by defendant insurer. Plaintiffs, the minor children of cross-defendant, were "additional insureds" under the policy. While plaintiffs were passengers in the insured automobile driven by cross-defendant, they were injured in an accident. The trial court ruled in favor of defendant, and cross-defendant and plaintiffs appealed the judgment that defendant was under no duty to…

Appeal Court DecisionDefendant employers challenged a ruling from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which passed judgment for plaintiff employee in the employee's action to recover wages due for work performed for the employers and for the penalty provided by the Cal. Act of 1911 (Act).Overview: corporate lawyerThe employers failed to pay wages to the employee, who sought both the wages and the penalty provided by the Act. The employee's complaint for back wages and the penalty failed to allege where the services were contracted for, where the services were performed, where the services were payable, or where the employee quit. Yet, the trial court rendered judgment for the employee for both back wages and the penalty. The employers appealed the penalty, and the court…

Appeal Court DecisionAppellant car dealership owner sought review of a decision of the Superior Court, Orange County (California) that granted summary judgment in favor of respondent car manufacturer because appellant, by not taking his breach of contract claim to the New Motor Vehicle Board, had not exhausted his administrative remedies. Appellant brought the action against respondent for breach of contract.Overview: business attorneysAppellant car dealership owner brought an action against respondent car manufacturer for breach of contract because respondent would not approve the sale of appellant's dealership to a third party. Summary judgment was entered in favor of respondent because appellant, by not taking his breach of contract claim to the New Motor Vehicle Board (the board), had…

Procedural PostureDefendants, consignment holders of lost jewelry that had belonged to plaintiffs, sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, which rendered summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs in a suit brought by plaintiffs to recover the value of the lost jewelry. Plaintiffs' suit had been based on breach of a consignment memorandum that placed all risk of loss on defendants.Overview: Are you looking for experienced Los Angeles business Lawyers or California business lawyers?Defendants held certain jewelry pursuant to a consignment agreement they had with plaintiff owners of the jewelry. Consignment memoranda placed the risk of loss from all hazards upon defendants until the return of the jewelry to plaintiffs. The jewelry was stolen from…

Procedural PostureAppellant excess insurer sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted summary adjudication to respondent insured in apportioning liability under comprehensive general liability policies for continuing injuries from asbestos exposure.Overview: If you need the best business lawyers Los Angeles, you won't do better than Nakase WadeThe insured purchased primary insurance policies from four different insurers over four decades and also purchased excess insurance policies. The insured selected a primary policy that had a per occurrence limit and no annual liability limit to respond initially to all claims in a specific year. The excess insurer issued a first-level excess policy to the insured for that year. The excess po…

Procedural PosturePlaintiff employee appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which adopted the findings of the court-appointed referee and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant employer and supervisor on plaintiff's eight claims for damages arising from her discharge.Overview: When you need the best business attorneys Los Angeles, you won't do better than Nakase WadePlaintiff employee brought suit against defendants, her employer and supervisor, for wrongful discharge. The trial court referred the case to a referee for disposition of the discovery issues. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which was ruled upon by the referee in defendants' favor. The trial court adopted the referee's holding, and plaintiff appealed. On appeal, t…

Procedural PostureAppellants trucking company challenged the decision of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of appellees corporation and individuals on both appellants' complaint for breach of a trucking contract and appellee corporation's cross-complaint for declaratory relief as to the meaning of a key term used in the contract.Overview: accident lawyers San DiegoThe court affirmed, concluding that the trial court was correct in submitting the interpretation of the contractual term "affiliated entities" to the jury as a disputed issue of fact on conflicting evidence extrinsic to the trucking contract. The court held that appellants trucking company and individuals failed to prove appellee corporation breached the trucki…

Procedural PosturePlaintiffs, residential tenants, sued defendants, the landlord and its agents, alleging that defendants negligently inspected, maintained, or repaired the premises and that water incursion and moisture resulted. Defendants moved to compel arbitration under an arbitration provision in the lease. The Monterey County Superior Court (California) denied the motion, and defendants appealed.Nakase Law Firm are one of the top litigaiton law firmsOverviewThe lease provided for binding arbitration of personal injury disputes arising from the condition of the leased premises. In affirming the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, the court interpreted Cal. Civ. Code § 1953(a)(4) and held that it established that a tenant could not validly agree, in a residential lease agreeme…