Negotiating With Insurance Agencies

After filing a claim with your insurance agency after an accident, you will typically be contacted by a claims adjuster to discuss details on your insurance policy and accident claim. The adjuster assesses your plan’s deductibles, coverage, and other details along with details from the crash and repair expenses to determine your compensation. Adjuster’s often attempt to minimize the amount…read more →

Obtaining Accident-Scene Evidence

Taking the appropriate actions to collect evidence in the event of an accident can add significant value to your legal case Once those in the accident are safe and any other dangers around the scene are extinguished, start collecting as much evidence as possible. While evidence collection is typically the last thing on your mind in the event of an…read more →

How Courts can and Should Limit AT&T Mobility V. Concepcion

On April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).  Concepcion held, 5-4, that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts California’s “Discover Bank rule,” which, according to the Court, would invalidate a class action ban in an arbitration clause whenever the term is imposed in a consumer contract of adhesion; the plaintiffs’ claims involve predictably…read more →

An employer’s ratification of an employee’s acts A principle’s ratification of an agent’s acts or conduct

CACI  3710. Ratification [Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] is responsible for the harm caused by [name of agent]’s conduct because [he/ she/it] approved that conduct after it occurred. If you find that [name of agent] harmed [name of plaintiff], you must decide whether [name of defendant] approved that conduct. To establish [his/her] claim, [name of plaintiff] must…read more →

Elements for proving the existence of negligence or fault in a slip and fall or premises liability incident

A failure to warn or repair the condition constitutes negligence. Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal 2d 108, Fitch v. Le Beau (1969) 1 Cal App 3d 320.  The landowner has an affirmative duty to use ordinary care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition and is liable for injuries caused by uncorrected condition that would have been…read more →

Individual and shared fault and liability

For many years California has recognized and encouraged the doctrine of joint and several liability. American Motorcycle Assoc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578 (1978) reaffirmed the commitment to this basic principle: “First, we conclude that our adoption of comparative negligence to ameliorate the inequitable consequences of the contributory negligence rule does not warrant the abolition or contraction of…read more →

Responsibility for injuries arising out of the respondeat superior relationship

“The rule of respondeat superior is familiar and simply stated: an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed within the scope of the employment. Equally well established, if somewhat surprising on first encounter, is the principle that an employee’s willful, malicious and even criminal torts may fall within the scope of his or her employment for…read more →

Agency vs. Independent Contractor

“Agency and independent contractorship are not necessarily mutually exclusive legal categories as independent contractor and servant or employee are. . . . One who contracts to act on behalf of another and subject to the other’s control, except with respect to his physical conduct, is both an agent and an independent contractor.” [emphais added] (City of Los Angeles v. Meyers…read more →

Elements for Proving the Existence of Agency in a Tort Cause of Action

Civil Code section 2295 provides: “An agent is one who represents another, called the principal, in dealings with third persons. Such representation is called agency.” “The existence of an agency is a factual question within the province of the trier of fact whose determination may not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (L. Byron Culver & Associates…read more →

Elements for Proving a Cause of Action in Tort for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

CACI 1600. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Essential Factual Elements:nm [Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [him/her] to suffer severe emotional distress. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was outrageous; 2. [That [name of defendant] intended to cause [name of plaintiff] emotional…read more →