California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
In this month’s update, we discuss Russian-seized planes, Starbucks-caused traffic jams, a squabble over the use of a family name, a restaurant’s pandemic-based loss, a poorly built house, and whether insurance covers any of...more
In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed a policyholder's right to reach excess liability coverage by providing key guidance as to the proper exhaustion method for continuous injury claims spanning...more
Welcome to CICR’s annual review of insurance cases. Here, we spotlight five decisions from the last year that you should know about—and five pending cases to watch. As our picks for “Cases to Know” indicate, 2019 was not a...more
Many contracts include a choice-of-law provision in which the parties agree to use a particular jurisdiction’s set of laws to govern the contract. These provisions promote predictability. No matter where a dispute may arise...more
The California Supreme Court has struck a blow to insurers' attempts to contract out of more policyholder friendly jurisdictions, holding that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy. Pitzer College v. Indian...more
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy of...more
In answering two questions posed to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court on August 29, 2019, addressed two significant issues: 1) whether California’s common law notice-prejudice rule is a...more
In a ruling that bodes well for policyholders, the California Supreme Court provides much-needed clarity on the question of when a so-called "intentional act" may give rise to insurance coverage under a liability insurance...more
By statute, California law holds that willful misconduct—where an insured intends to cause someone harm—is not insurable as a matter of public policy. For years, insurance companies have sought to expand this prohibition to...more
On Monday, the California Supreme Court revived a 2011 insurance regulation designed to protect homeowners from underinsurance because of the insurance company’s use of potentially misleading estimates for home replacement...more
Nearly two years ago, a California appellate court invalidated a rule promulgated by the state’s Insurance Commissioner, on the ground that the regulator lacks authority to prohibit “deceptive acts or practices” which are not...more
In 2011, the California Insurance Commissioner promulgated a regulation governing replacement cost estimates for homeowners insurance (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, §2695.183 [the Regulation]). After the trial court and...more
On June 9, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co., holding that so-called Brandt fees should be treated as compensatory damages when calculating the ratio of...more
Be Still, My Heart: New Suit Says Fitbits Fail to Track Heartbeats as Promised - Why it matters - Fitbit has been hit with another consumer class action asserting false advertising claims, this time alleging that...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, No. S205889, 2015 WL4938295 (Cal. 2015), that an insurer is precluded from refusing to honor an insured’s assignment of rights for past losses...more
On August 20, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court of Orange Co. and held that California Insurance Code section 520 – a statute tracing back to 1872 – dictates “a...more
This morning the California Supreme Court announced the thoroughly sensible ruling that a corporation may transfer its rights under liability insurance policies without obtaining the consent of the insurance company. Fluor...more