Real Time Legal News

Case Summaries

Legal Malpractice

[02/04] Elam v. Menzies
In plaintiff's suit claiming negligence in a heart operation that defendant-doctor performed, summary judgment for doctor on the ground that Kentucky's one year statute of limitations for medical malpractice suits had run is reversed and remanded as there is a factual dispute as to whether plaintiff knew or should have known he had a claim after the conversation with a second doctor, and thus, this issue should be referred to the jury.

[02/02] Clark v. Baka
In an action for damages for physical and neurological injuries plaintiffs' grandchild allegedly sustained during his birth, plaintiffs' appeal from summary judgment for defendant-hospital management company is dismissed where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the action for appeal because the court of appeals was unable to discern how or why plaintiffs would face hardship or injustice by waiting to appeal until their claims against all defendants were fully resolved by the district court.

[01/25] Stein v. York
In plaintiff's legal malpractice action against her attorney, trial court's entry judgment of $2.65 million in favor of the plaintiff is reversed where: 1) a default judgment for an amount greater than that stated in the complaint is void; 2) constructive notice of potential liability does not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 580; 3) the judgment is void and vacated as plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirement; and 4) plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

[01/21] Truong v. Glasser
In plaintiffs' legal malpractice action against his former attorney arising out of his purported negligent advice in a real estate transaction, grant of attorney's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) under prior case law, the trial court correctly found plaintiffs first sustained actual injury when they obtained and obligated to pay new counsel to file a lawsuit seeking to escape the consequences of their signing the lease, and therefore sustained actual injury more than one year before the malpractice action was filed; 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reject the summary judgment motion based on the absence of headings within the Separate Statement of Material Facts; and 3) under the circumstances, plaintiffs have demonstrated neither that the trial court abused its discretion in considering the evidence submitted by defendant nor that any alleged error was prejudicial.

[01/11] American Home Assur. Co. v. Pope
In an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that it was not liable under a professional liability insurance policy for the acts of a psychologist who treated a victim of sexual abuse but failed to report the abuse, summary judgment for insurer is reversed where the "knowingly wrongful" exclusion in the policy on which the order was based was ambiguous.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[02/08] Yokoyama v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
In an action alleging deceptive representations in defendant's brochures, which promoted certain annuities as appropriate for seniors, a denial of class certification is reversed where the Hawaii Deceptive Practices Act did not require individual showings of reliance on the alleged misrepresentations.

[02/05] Villano v. Waterman Convalescent Hosp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against a convalescent hospital claiming she was admitted without her consent, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where, although a stipulated judgment is appealable, plaintiff cannot show that allegedly erroneous rulings were prejudicial.

[02/04] Menendez v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against her insurance company for its failure to pay personal injury protection (PIP) benefits after she was injured in an automobile accident, decision of a court of appeal reversing the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is reversed where, because a 2001 amendment creating the statutory presuit notice provisions constitutes a substantive change to the statute, it cannot be retroactively applied to insurance policies issued before the effective date of the amendment.

[02/04] Bell v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
In plaintiff's action against an automobile maker for negligence and products liability for severe injuries when he lost control of his BMW Z3 roadster convertible on a freeway, judgment of the trial court granting plaintiff's new trial motion but denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court prejudicially erred by granting a new trial based on inadmissible statements in juror declarations; 2) the record does not justify a new trial on the grounds stated by the trial court; 3) the new trial order cannot be affirmed on other grounds; and 4) plaintiffs have shown no prejudicial error in the judgment.

[02/04] Elam v. Menzies
In plaintiff's suit claiming negligence in a heart operation that defendant-doctor performed, summary judgment for doctor on the ground that Kentucky's one year statute of limitations for medical malpractice suits had run is reversed and remanded as there is a factual dispute as to whether plaintiff knew or should have known he had a claim after the conversation with a second doctor, and thus, this issue should be referred to the jury.

More...