By Daniel L. Martens. litigants alike have struggled

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "By Daniel L. Martens. litigants alike have struggled"

Transcription

1 Real Estate Law Sponsored by West Group MCLE ARTICLE AND SELF-ASSESSMENT TEST By reading this article and answering the accompanying test questions, you can earn one MCLE credit. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions on the test answer sheet on page 41. By Daniel L. Martens ToxicTimeline The supreme court s decision in Hamilton will have little relevance when applying the statute of limitations in other toxic tort contexts For many years, courts and litigants alike have struggled with the proper application of statutes of limitations in toxic tort cases in which the plaintiff alleges injury or illness following long-term exposure to a purported toxic substance. Unlike traditional snapshot torts, in which a physical impact and the resulting immediate injury plainly identify the beginning of the limitations period, toxic tort cases often present a more complicated factual scenario. As one commentator has noted, The combination of lengthy latency periods and diagnostic difficulties is a unique feature of toxic substances cases for purposes of statutes of limitations analysis: No temporally discrete event exists that encompasses the defendant s breach and the plaintiff s injury. 1 California courts have addressed this difficult issue in a variety of contexts and under differing factual circumstances, invoking various rules of law and general equitable principles that appear to apply. Last year, the California Supreme Court added another piece to this puzzle albeit a small piece when it held in Hamilton v. Asbestos Corporation, Limited 2 that the applicable oneyear limitations period did not bar a plaintiff from filing suit in 1996 claiming personal injury due to asbestos exposure, even though the plaintiff had filed a prior action in 1993 claiming injury from the same exposure. In reaching its holding, the court invoked a very narrow and technical reading of the unique California statute that establishes the one-year limitations period for asbestos cases. Daniel L. Martens is a senior associate in the Los Angeles office of Latham & Watkins. He specializes in toxic tort and products liability litigation. LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY

2 The court also purported to limit the longstanding rule against splitting a single claim or cause of action into multiple claims. The overall impact of the court s opinion, however, is very limited. Notwithstanding the seemingly broad language contained in some parts of the decision, the court s reasoning and ultimate holding are limited to asbestos cases and the particular facts that were before the court. As a result, the Hamilton case has very little impact on prior holdings of California courts that have applied the primary right theory and the rule against splitting a cause of action in nonasbestos toxic tort cases and cases in which the plaintiff claims several different injuries arising from the same wrongful act. In those cases, the law forecloses the argument that a new limitations period commences with each new disease or illness. That would amount to splitting a cause of action. Instead, the applicable one-year limitations period begins to run when the first manifestations of illness appear. It is not material that not all the damages arising from the defendant s alleged wrongful act have been sustained at that time. If a plaintiff fails to file suit within one year of discovery of the first illness and its alleged cause, the entire action is time-barred. The Hamilton decision does not change this established California law. The facts of Hamilton are fairly simple. Beginning in the early 1940s, the plaintiff, Arthur Mitchell, was employed in various industrial workplaces where he was exposed to asbestos. His exposure ended in 1963, when he retired. In the late 1970s, he began to experience shortness of breath and ultimately was diagnosed in 1979 with asbestosis (scarring and thickening of lung tissue). He filed his first lawsuit (Hamilton I) in October 1993, claiming that this lung condition was caused by his exposure to asbestos. Several years later, in early 1996, Mitchell was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma (a cancerous growth throughout his abdominal cavity). He filed a second lawsuit (Hamilton II) in February As in his first action, Mitchell alleged that his medical condition, this time mesothelioma, was caused by his many years of exposure to asbestos in the workplace. At the trial court level, one of the defendants in Hamilton II moved to have the plaintiff s claim involving mesothelioma dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, arguing that the applicable one-year limitations period commenced with the filing of Hamilton I in 1993 and thus had long since expired by the time the plaintiff filed Hamilton II in Although the trial court denied that motion, the California Court of Appeal reversed. 3 In its decision, the court squarely addressed the plaintiff s argument that the law should recognize a separate cause of action and new running of the statute for [a] latedeveloped cancer injury like mesothelioma. 4 The court declined to recognize such a rule, explaining that California follows the primary right theory, which generally prevents a plaintiff from splitting his or her cause of action, and that if the statute of limitations bars an action based upon harm immediately caused by [the] defendant s wrongdoing, a separate cause of action based on a subsequent harm arising from that wrongdoing would normally amount to splitting a cause of action. 5 Although recognizing that harsh results may arise with the application of this rule in cases like Hamilton, in which the plaintiff suffers a progressive occupational disease, the court of appeal held that the applicable one-year limitations period began to run when Mitchell first alleged his indivisible claim for personal injury in Hamilton I. 6 As a result, the claim he sought to advance in Hamilton II was time-barred. The Supreme Court s Decision The California Supreme Court reversed, finding that neither of Mitchell s actions was timebarred. 7 The court offered a two-part analysis, first addressing the unique statute of limitations for asbestos cases, and then turning to the lower court s analysis of the rule against splitting a cause of action. The court began with a review of Code of Civil Procedure Section the one-year statute of limitations for asbestos cases in California and several decisions that have construed the particular language of that statute. Section provides that any action alleging injury or illness based upon exposure to asbestos must be brought within one year after the plaintiff first sustains a disability related to asbestos exposure. Unlike the separate limitations period that applies to most other types of personal injury claims, which generally begins to run at the time the first manifestations of illness appear, 8 Section defines disability as the plaintiff s loss of time from work as a result of The court offered a two-part analysis, first addressing the unique statute of limitations for asbestos cases, and then turning to the lower court s analysis of the rule against splitting a cause of action. [asbestos] exposure. Accordingly, the oneyear limitations period in asbestos cases does not run from the date of the injury or its discovery but only commences once the alleged injury causes the plaintiff to lose time from work. It is this unique aspect of Section upon which the supreme court grounded its holding. Focusing on the plain meaning of Section 340.2, the court held that Hamilton II was timely filed. According to the court, because Mitchell retired for reasons unrelated to his earlier asbestos exposure, he did not ever suffer a disability within the meaning of Section 340.2, notwithstanding the significant illness he experienced as a result of his prior exposure. 9 Because no disability was present, the one-year limitations period had not commenced much less expired by the time he filed Hamilton II. Taking that reasoning a step further, the court held that Mitchell s filing of Hamilton I had no bearing on the issue of when the limitations period commenced. The court concluded that the accrual of a cause of action for asbestos-related injury is separate and distinct from the beginning of the limitations period prescribed by Section Unlike other claims involving latent injury or disease, the limitations period in asbestos cases does not commence until the plaintiff actually loses time from work. Therefore, although the filing of an action for asbestos-related injury may be said to be an admission that the cause of action has accrued in the ripeness 38 LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY 2001

3

4 sense, it is not an admission that the limitations period of section has simultaneously begun. To hold otherwise, the court noted, is to rewrite the statute. 11 In the second part of its decision, the court considered the lower court s reliance on the primary right doctrine and the rule against splitting a cause of action. The court began its analysis by stating that it need not reach the issue of whether Mitchell had a separate primary right to be free from each of the two diseases resulting from his asbestos exposure. 12 Rather, the court assumed for purposes of argument that the filing of Hamilton II violated the rule against splitting a cause of action. 13 Even so, the application of that rule did not bar Hamilton II and, in its contrary holding, the court of appeal had confused the rule against splitting a cause of action with the statute of limitations. 14 The supreme court explained: The rule against splitting a cause of action is neither an aspect of, nor a restatement of, the statute of limitations; rather it is in part a rule of abatement and in part a rule of res judicata. The primary right theory has a fairly narrow field of application. It is invoked most often when a plaintiff attempts to divide a primary right and enforce it in two suits. The theory prevents this result by either of two means: (1) if the first suit is still pending when the second is filed, the defendant in the second suit may plead that fact in abatement or (2) if the first suit has terminated in a judgment on the merits adverse to the plaintiff, the defendant in the second suit may set up that judgment as a bar under the principles of res judicata. Neither of these applications of the rule against splitting a cause of action depends on whether the second action was brought within the period allowed by the statute of limitations. Conversely, application of the statute of limitations does not depend on whether a prior action was brought, or how it was resolved. 15 The court determined that the defendant s failure to plead the pendency of Hamilton I in seeking an abatement of Hamilton II resulted in a waiver by the defendant of all potential arguments relating to the rule against splitting a cause of action. The Fundamental Limits of Hamilton Notwithstanding the seemingly broad language the court used in some parts of its opinion, the holding in Hamilton does not add much to the analysis relating to the application of limitations periods in toxic tort cases. The decision is limited in at least two fundamental respects. First, Hamilton is limited to asbestos cases and the special limitations period that applies to such cases. Indeed, the court began its analysis by drawing a sharp distinction between the one-year statute of limitations that applies in asbestos cases which commences only after the plaintiff loses time from work with the limitations period that applies in most other types of personal injury cases which generally commences as soon as the first signs of injury appear. As the court explained, the unique nature of the asbestos statute of limitations creates the unusual result that accrual of a cause of action for asbestos related injury does not mark the beginning of the limitations period. 16 Thus the court concluded that an asbestos plaintiff who has not lost time from work does not trigger the oneyear limitations period by filing a personal injury complaint based on asbestos exposure. This is not true with respect to other types of personal injury actions. In most cases, the applicable one-year limitations period does begin to run upon accrual of the cause of action. As a result, the filing of a personal injury lawsuit likely would commence the statute of limitations in nonasbestos cases. The court appeared to concede this point, reasoning that such an act may be said to be an admission that the cause of action has accrued in the ripeness sense. 17 The court s reasoning, as well as its ultimate holding, therefore applies only to asbestos cases and cannot properly be extended to other types of personal injury actions. Second, the Hamilton decision is limited to its facts, particularly with respect to the portion of the opinion that purports to circumscribe the longstanding rule against splitting a cause of action. The plaintiff in Hamilton filed two different lawsuits alleging injury relating to the same asbestos exposure. In considering those facts, the court stated that the rule against splitting a cause of action does not require consideration of the limitations period but rather is in part a rule of abatement and in part a rule of res judicata. 18 The court explained that if the first suit is still pending when the second is filed, the defendant in the second suit may plead that fact in abatement, and if the first suit has terminated in a judgment on the merits adverse to the plaintiff, the defendant in the second suit may set up that judgment as a bar under the principles of res judicata. 19 Although addressing these two potential scenarios in which a plaintiff may attempt to split a cause of action, the court did not consider a third important and common scenario: a plaintiff who alleges in a single lawsuit that several medical conditions purportedly were caused by the same This Los Angeles Lawyer MCLE self-study test is sponsored by WEST GROUP. MCLE Test No. 91 The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. 1. The statute of limitations for most personal injury cases in California is: A. One year. B. Two years. C. Three years. D. Four years. 2. The statute of limitations for personal injury cases that involve an injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos is: A. One year. B. Two years. C. Three years. D. Four years. 3. What is the effect of the rule against splitting a cause of action? A. A defendant may not split its defense of a claim. B. A plaintiff may not split a lawsuit between two different law firms. C. A plaintiff may not pursue a single cause of action in multiple claims. D. A defendant may not refuse to defend in related lawsuits. 4. In its decision in Hamilton v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., the California Supreme Court explained that the rule against splitting a cause of action is a combination of: A. The rule of issue preclusion and the rule of claim preclusion. B. The rule against perpetuities and the rule of law. C. The rule of collateral estoppel and the rule of judicial estoppel. D. The rule of abatement and the rule of res judicata. 40 LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY 2001

5 5. The reasoning and holding of Hamilton appear to be limited to: A. Personal injury cases. B. Toxic tort cases. C. Asbestos cases. D. There are no limitations to the reasoning and holding of Hamilton. 6. In Hamilton, which of the following scenarios was not before the California Supreme Court: A. A personal injury plaintiff claiming injury caused by exposure to asbestos. B. A plaintiff in a toxic tort matter who alleged more than one medical condition in the same lawsuit. C. An asbestos plaintiff who had filed two different lawsuits. D. A plaintiff who had worked with asbestos in the past. 7. In a personal injury case, it is not material to the commencement of the statute of limitations that the plaintiff has not yet sustained all damages arising from the defendant s alleged wrongful act. 8. What is the leading case in California regarding the application of the rule against splitting a cause of action in nonasbestos toxic tort matters? A. Zambrano v. Dorough. B. Hamilton. C. Smith v. Jones. D. Miller v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association, Inc. 9. The primary right theory and the rule against splitting a cause of action are unrelated. 10. Which case reaffirmed the reasoning and holding of Miller in 1999? A. Fetters v. Gillman. B. Bennett v. Shahhal. C. Hamilton. D. Martinez-Ferrer v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. 11. Assuming the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the alleged cause of his or her injuries, when does the statute of limitations commence in a nonasbestos personal injury case? A. When the plaintiff files suit. B. When the first manifestations of illness or injury appear. C. When all cognizable injuries have occurred. D. When all diseases have been identified and diagnosed. 12. Assuming the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the alleged cause of his or her injuries, when does the statute of limitations commence in an asbestos personal injury case? A. When the manifestation of illness first appears. B. When the defendant files its answer. C. When the plaintiff first loses time from work as a result of the plaintiff s asbestosrelated injury. D. When the plaintiff files suit. 13. Pursuant to the holding in Miller, a plaintiff alleging that the same toxic exposure caused the plaintiff to develop pancreatic cancer in 1997 and colon cancer in 1999 may properly assert that a one-year limitations period commenced in 1997 and a new one-year limitations period commenced in In what year does the statute of limitations expire for a plaintiff alleging that the same toxic exposure caused the plaintiff to develop pancreatic cancer in 1997 and colon cancer in 1999? A B C D How have subsequent decisions dealt with the reasoning and holdings of Martinez-Ferrer and Zambrano? A. Courts have adopted the reasoning and holdings. B. Courts have criticized the reasoning and holdings. C. Courts have applied the reasoning and holdings. D. Courts have expanded the reasoning and holdings. 16. The holdings of Miller and Bennett are unchanged by the holding in Hamilton. 17. Section of the California Code of Civil Procedure defines disability as: A. The plaintiff s loss of time from work as a result of asbestos exposure. B. The plaintiff s asbestos-related injury. C. The official medical diagnosis given to an asbestos plaintiff. D. The plaintiff s own description of his or her injury. 18. The plaintiff in Hamilton was allowed to pursue both his lawsuits. 19. The accrual of a cause of action for an asbestos-related injury is separate and distinct from the beginning of the limitations period. 20. The accrual of a cause of action for a nonasbestos personal injury claim is separate and distinct from the beginning of the limitations period. MCLE Answer Sheet #91 TOXIC TIMELINE Sponsored by WEST GROUP Name Law Firm/Organization Address City State/Zip Phone State Bar # Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credits 1. Study the MCLE article in this issue. 2. Answer the test questions opposite by marking the appropriate boxes below. Each question has only one answer. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. 3. Mail the answer sheet and the $15 testing fee ($20 for non-lacba members) to: Los Angeles Lawyer MCLE Test P.O. Box Los Angeles, CA Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer. 4. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the MCLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity. 5. For future reference, please retain the MCLE test materials returned to you. Answers Mark your answers to the test by checking the appropriate boxes below. Each question has only one answer. 1. A B C D 2. A B C D 3. A B C D 4. A B C D 5. A B C D 6. A B C D 7. True False 8. A B C D 9. True False 10. A B C D 11. A B C D 12. A B C D 13. True False 14. A B C D 15. A B C D 16. True False 17. A B C D 18. True False 19. True False 20. True False LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY

6 toxic exposure. Such a scenario is not unusual in modern toxic tort cases, and an example is easily imagined. A plaintiff who lived near an industrial facility for many years develops pancreatic cancer in 1997 and then colon cancer in He files suit in 2000 alleging that both conditions were caused by his exposure to a particular chemical used by the facility during the time he lived in the area. 20 The defendant asserts that the applicable one-year limitations period bars the plaintiff s entire action, which expired in 1998 one year after the plaintiff first discovered he was injured as the result of toxic exposure. The plaintiff argues otherwise, contending that a new limitations period commenced in 1999, when he developed colon cancer. Under facts such as these, neither the rule of abatement nor the rule of res judicata apply. There is nothing to abate because the plaintiff advances only one pending action. Res judicata is inapplicable because there was no prior suit, much less a prior judgment on which the bar of res judicata could be based. Accordingly, when a toxic tort plaintiff alleges more than one medical condition in the same lawsuit a situation that the Hamilton court was not required to address the rule against splitting a cause of action meets head-on with the applicable statute of limitations. Miller Unchanged by Hamilton Because the Hamilton court did not consider the situation of a plaintiff who alleges more than one medical condition in a single lawsuit, its decision leaves unchanged the leading case in California addressing this issue: Miller v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association, Inc. 21 In Miller, the plaintiff brought a personal injury action against her condominium association in 1986, alleging that she developed immune dysregulation as the result of mold growing behind the walls of her condominium unit. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the oneyear statute of limitations had expired before the plaintiff filed her action. Specifically, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff filed her action more than one year after she had suffered actual and appreciable harm asthma and allergies that she knew was caused by the mold in her unit. In opposing the motion, the plaintiff contended that her lawsuit was not based on asthma and allergies, which she attributed to the mold in 1984, but rather on immune dysregulation, which was not diagnosed until She argued that the symptoms she suffered in connection with immune dysregulation were more severe and debilitating than those normally associated with allergies or asthma and, further, these new symptoms constituted a new and separate injury, thus commencing a new limitations period. In contrast, the defendant contended that the plaintiff s exposure to the mold constituted the invasion of one primary right, which caused her appreciable harm long before she filed suit. The defendant argued that permitting the plaintiff s later-diagnosed immune dysregulation to serve as the basis for a separate claim would allow the plaintiff to split her cause of action and avoid the statute of limitations. The court agreed: The long-standing rule in California is that a single tort can be the foundation of but one claim for damages. Accordingly, if the statute of limitations bars an action based upon harm immediately caused by [the] defendant s wrongdoing, a separate cause of action based on a subsequent harm arising from that wrongdoing would normally amount to splitting a cause of action. Given the above facts, reasonable minds can draw only one conclusion that [the plaintiff] suffered appreciable and actual harm by October 1984, and that she was aware of its negligent cause by October Pursuant to Miller, the law does not allow a toxic tort plaintiff to split a single cause of action into separate claims by contending that only a portion of the plaintiff s claimed injury or illness is time-barred. 23 The California Court of Appeal reconfirmed this point in 1999 and reaffirmed Miller in the process in a case that involved two alleged injuries that were more separate and distinct than the asthma and immune dysregulation at issue in Miller. In Bennett v. Shahhal, 24 the plaintiff underwent surgery to have a shunt inserted into his brain that drained fluid into his abdomen. A short time later, after complications developed in the plaintiff s abdomen, he suspected that his physician might have committed malpractice during the procedure. Although he met with a lawyer in June 1996 to discuss filing a lawsuit, he elected not to file suit at that time. The plaintiff then developed further complications, this time with the portion of the shunt in his brain. After undergoing another surgical procedure to correct the problem, he filed suit against his physician in July 1997, alleging malpractice in connection with the first surgery. The court granted the defendant s motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the one-year limitations period expired before the plaintiff filed suit, and that the established rule against splitting a cause of action prevented him from dividing his claim into two actions one for injury to his abdomen and another for injury to his brain. Citing Miller, the court declared: A malpractice action may not be pursued piecemeal. As a general rule, where an injury, although slight, is sustained in consequence of the wrongful act of another, the statute of limitations attaches at once. It is not material that all the damages resulting from the act shall not have been sustained at that time, and the running of the statute is not postponed by the fact that the actual or substantial damages do not occur until a later date. The long-standing rule in California is that a single tort can be the foundation for but one claim for damages. Accordingly, if the statute of limitation bars an action based upon harm immediately caused by [the] defendant s wrongdoing, a separate cause of action based on a subsequent harm arising from that wrongdoing would normally amount to splitting a cause of action. 25 Considering again the example of the plaintiff who developed pancreatic cancer in 1997 and then colon cancer in 1999, the law under Miller and Bennett renders the entire action time-barred, even though the plaintiff developed colon cancer within one year of filing suit in The plaintiff may not pursue the two types of cancer in separate actions. The plaintiff alleges that both types of cancer were caused by the same wrongful act the same exposure, to the same toxin, from the same source, during the same time period. The two cancers, therefore, like the separate and distinct abdomen and brain injuries at issue in Bennett, are merely different manifestations of the harm brought about by the same wrongful act; they do not provide the basis for separate causes of action. 26 The one-year statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff developed pancreatic cancer in 1997, and a new limitations period did not commence in 1999 when he later developed colon cancer. The law simply does not allow the plaintiff to split his single cause of action into two separate claims, one that is time-barred (pancreatic cancer) and one that is not (colon cancer). 27 As a result, the plaintiff s entire personal injury action is time-barred by the time he files suit in the year Several California courts, including the court of appeal in Hamilton, have recognized that strict application of this rule in toxic tort cases may bring harsh results when the plaintiff claims more than one illness or disease. For the most part, however, those courts have declined to make an exception to the rule, opting instead to leave any alteration of the law to the legislature. 28 Although two 42 LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY 2001

7 cases Martinez-Ferrer v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 29 decided in 1980, and Zambrano v. Dorough, decided in declined to apply the rule against splitting a cause of action, subsequent decisions have strongly criticized the holdings of those cases. 31 In fact, over the last 20 years in the United States, at least 11 courts 8 of them California courts have specifically declined to follow the rationale advanced in those decisions. 32 Notwithstanding the consistent and strong criticism directed at each of those cases over the years, a federal court in California recently relied upon Martinez-Ferrer to allow plaintiffs in a nonasbestos toxic tort case to split their causes of action. In O Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc., 33 the court held that claims based on illnesses developed more than one year before the plaintiffs filed suit were time-barred, but claims based on illnesses diagnosed within that one-year window were not time-barred. The opinion, however, does not appear to be well reasoned. The court undertook very little analysis in reaching its holding and failed to mention or consider either the primary right theory or the rule against splitting a cause of action. Likewise, the O Connor court failed to consider the reasoning or holdings of Miller or Bennett. Furthermore, the court cited Hamilton in a footnote, contending that it was instructive, but failed to appreciate that the Hamilton court s reasoning and holding were inextricably tied to the special statute of limitations for asbestos cases and are inapplicable in any nonasbestos case. O Connor therefore does not appear to represent the law in California on this issue. 34 The law established by the holdings in Miller and Bennett thus is unchanged by Hamilton. Hamilton is limited to asbestos cases and to its facts, which did not include a plaintiff who alleges several medical conditions in the same lawsuit. When that factual scenario is present, the holdings of Miller and Bennett apply, and the rule against splitting a cause of action should prevent a plaintiff from arguing that a new limitations period commences with each new injury or illness that develops. Daniel F. Rubin MD SPECIALTIES: Toxicology, Cancer, Leukemia, Lung Disease, Skin Cancer, Job Safety &Health, Medication Injury, Environmental Health, Drug Overdoses, Burns, Scars, Asbestos, Fiberglass, Sick Building Syndrome, Pesticides, Asthma, Nerve/Brain Damage due to Chemicals, Dermatology, Contact Dermatitis, Hives, Hair Loss, Cosmetic Dmg., Carbon Monoxide. DEGREES/LIC.: MD., CA 264 S. La Cienega Blvd., #1071, Beverly Hills, CA Tel: STACHYBOTRYS J. Wasserberger MD, FACEP, FACMT Medical Toxicologist (Board Certified) Emergency Physician (Board Certified) Professor of Emergency Medicine Associate Professor of Internal Medicine, UCLA Lyons Avenue, Suite 102 Santa Clarita, CA TEL Michael D. Green, The Paradox of Statutes of Limitations in Toxic Substances Litigation, 76 CAL. L. REV. 965, 976 (1988). In his article, Green proposes the radical notion that statutes of limitations should be abolished entirely in toxic tort litigation, thereby leaving the decision when to file suit to the discretion of the plaintiff. 2 Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 22 Cal. 4th 1127, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701, 998 P. 2d 403 (2000), reh g denied, 2000 Cal. LEXIS 5865 (July 19, 2000). Originally encaptioned Arthur Mitchell v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., this case was recaptioned after the plaintiff Arthur Mitchell died from mesothelioma in June 1997, and the court of appeal ordered Mitchell s adult daughters, Linda LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY

8 INDEXED BY WORD OR PHRASE OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES CALIFORNIA DISCOVERY INDEX INTERROGATORIES AND SUPPLEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA AUTHORITIES SAVES RESEARCH TIME! ONLY $95 50 INCLUDING TAX & HANDLING CONTAINS: definitions, purpose and description of interrogatories 519 N. SPAULDING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA propriety of various uses of interrogatories specific objections to interrogatories A.B. Press PUBLISHER OF LAW STUDY AIDS REAL ESTATE/REAL PROPERTY MATTERS Specializations: Customs & Standards of Practice, Agency Relationships Material Disclosure in Residential Real Estate Sales TEMMY WALKER, REALTOR Real Estate Consulting Expert Witnessing USED BY: The judiciary, attorneys, state, county and city counsel, law schools, law libraries, and legal clinics. TELEPHONE (323) SERVICES RENDERED: Litigation Consulting, Expert Testimony, Broker Practice, Liability Audit, Educational Services, Industry Mediator Certified Residential Broker Graduate Realtors Institute, Certified Residential Specialist, California Association of Realtors Director Since 1981, National Association of Realtors Director, State Faculty Master Instructor, Member, Real Estate Education Association, Past President, San Fernando Valley Board of Realtors 5026 Veloz Avenue, Tarzana, California Telephone (818) , ext. 344 Pager (818) CALIFORNIA BROKER LICENSE NO Hamilton and Janet Iorio, to be substituted as his successors in interest. 22 Cal. 4th 1127 n.8. 3 Mitchell v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., 62 Cal. App. 4th 200, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 11 (1998). 4 Id. at Id. at Id. at The California Supreme Court granted review in June Oral argument was heard on March 8, 2000, and the supreme court issued its opinion on May 15, Defendant Asbestos Corporation moved for a rehearing in July 2000, but the court denied that request. Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 22 Cal. 4th 1127, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 701, 998 P. 2d 403 (2000), reh g denied, 2000 Cal. LEXIS 5865 (July 19, 2000). 8 Barr v. ACandS Inc., 57 Cal. App. 4th 1038, 1048, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494, 500 (1997). 9 Hamilton, 22 Cal. 4th at Id. at Id. at Id. at Earlier in its opinion, the court concluded that based on medical testimony relating to Mitchell s two claimed conditions, the asbestosis found in Mitchell s lungs in 1979 and the malignant mesothelioma found in his abdomen in 1996 were two separate and distinct diseases. Id. at Justice Brown, in a concurring opinion, took this notion a step further by contending that the causes of action in the second complaint were separate and distinct from those in the first complaint, and the filing of the first action did not trigger the one-year statute of limitations for the causes of action in the second action. Id. at This argument runs directly contrary to the rule against splitting a cause of action. See Bennett v. Shahhal, 75 Cal. App. 4th 384, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 (1999); Miller v. Lakeside Village Condo. Ass n, Inc., 1 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796 (1991). 13 Hamilton, 22 Cal. 4th at Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. 20 This example assumes that at least one year before filing suit, the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the chemical at issue was a purported carcinogen and was used at the facility. See Norgart v. The Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383, 404, 87 Cal. Rptr. 453, 465, 981 P. 2d 79, 92 (1999) (examining factual basis necessary to establish that plaintiff knew or should have known alleged cause of injury); Clark v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 83 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1059, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 223, 230 (2000) (same). 21 Miller v. Lakeside Village Condo. Ass n, Inc., 1 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796 (1991). 22 Id. at At least one trial court has held otherwise. See Aguayo v. Betz Labs., L.A. Superior Court Case No (minute order issued Feb. 18, 2000), petition for writ of mandate denied by California Court of Appeal (Apr. 14, 2000). 24 Bennett v. Shahhal, 75 Cal. App. 4th 384, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 (1999). 25 Id. at Miranda v. Shell Oil Co., 17 Cal. App. 4th 1651, 1659, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 655, 659 (1993) (defining plaintiff s primary right in toxic tort case as his or her interest in avoiding harm as a result of exposure to pollutants ; holding that plaintiff s various alleged injuries were different manifestations of the harm brought about by the exposure, and not separate primary rights, each of which produces a separate cause of action ). 27 Other jurisdictions have similarly rejected the notion that a new limitations period commences with each new 44 LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY 2001

9 injury experienced by a plaintiff. See, e.g., Joyce v. ACandS, Inc., 785 F. 2d 1200, (4th Cir. 1986) (preventing the plaintiff from splitting cause of action so that new limitations period commences with onset of subsequent and distinct disease allegedly caused by the same wrongful act ); Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 761 F. 2d 1129, 1136 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that a plaintiff may not split his cause of action because a claim for damages inheres in the causative aspects of a breach of legal duty, the wrongful act itself, and not in the various forms of harm which result therefrom ; thus a plaintiff does not have a discrete action for each harm ); Newton v. Southern Wood Piedmont Co., 163 F.R.D. 625, 633 (S.D. Ga. 1995), aff d, 95 F. 3d 59 (11th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff who alleged numerous physical infirmities resulting from exposure to chemicals at wood treatment plant barred by limitations period when she later claimed new skin condition based on same exposure); Caldwell v. A. H. Robins Co., 577 F. Supp. 796, 797 (W.D. Pa. 1984), aff d, 735 F. 2d 1347 (3d Cir. 1984) ( [The] plaintiff is not entitled to a new limitations period to begin with the appearance of each new injury but rather [t]he limitations period begins to run when damage is inflicted which is physically objective and ascertainable. ). 28 Bennett v. Shahhal, 75 Cal. App. 4th 384, 392, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272, 278 (1999) (refusing to split cause of action because any alteration of the applicable statute of limitations should come from the Legislature ); Miranda v. Shell Oil Co., 17 Cal. App. 4th 1651, 1659, 26 Cal. Rptr. 655, 659 (1993) ( We neither overlook nor underestimate the dilemma posed to a toxic-tort plaintiff by the single cause of action principle. Nevertheless, we decide none of these issues [and] we encourage the Legislature to look into the matter. ). 29 Martinez-Ferrer v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 105 Cal. App. 3d 316, 164 Cal. Rptr. 591 (1980). 30 Zambrano v. Dorough, 179 Cal. App. 3d 169, 224 Cal. Rptr. 323 (1986). 31 Moreover, the facts in both Martinez-Ferrer and Zambrano are distinguishable from the example of the plaintiff claiming both pancreatic cancer and colon cancer. The Zambrano court characterized the plaintiff s first injury as relatively minor. Zambrano, 179 Cal. App. 3d at 172. Similarly, the Martinez-Ferrer court identified the initial injury sustained by the plaintiff as a relatively minor problem that was relatively innocuous. Martinez-Ferrer, 105 Cal. App. 3d at Under any standard, cancer is neither relatively minor nor relatively innocuous. Thus, to the extent the holdings in Zambrano or Martinez-Ferrer were based on the fact that the plaintiff s first disorder was minor, the holdings are inapplicable to cases with facts similar to those presented in the example. 32 California decisions: Henry v. Clifford, 32 Cal. App. 4th 315, 323 (1995) (finding plaintiff s reliance on Martinez-Ferrer to be clearly misplaced ); Cottle v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. App. 4th 1367 n.1 (1992) (dissent describing Martinez-Ferrer as a narrow exception to the policy against splitting causes of action and criticized in subsequent opinions ); Miller v. Lakeside Village Condo. Ass n, Inc., 1 Cal. App. 4th 1611, (1991) (rejecting reasoning of Martinez-Ferrer, noting that decision has been soundly criticized [for] disregarding the rule against splitting a cause of action ); Marsha V. v. Gardner, 231 Cal. App. 3d 265, 281 (1991) (dismissing plaintiff s action as untimely and rejecting argument that plaintiff should be allowed to recover for injuries plaintiff did not discover until recently; citing Martinez-Ferrer in dissenting opinion); Evans v. Eckelman, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1609, 1620 (1990) (refusing to follow Martinez-Ferrer, characterizing it as having been decided solely on its facts and without formulation of a broad rule ); DeRose v. Carswell, 196 Cal. App. 3d 1011 n.8 (1988) (finding that plaintiff s action for subsequently discovered injuries was time-barred; criticizing Martinez-Ferrer s disregard and assault on rule against splitting cause of action; noting that no reported case has relied upon Zambrano); Rosenblatt v. Ernst & Young Int l, Ltd., 87 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1054 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (distinguishing and declining to follow Martinez-Ferrer); Sanderson v. International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS n.5 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 1996) (same). But see O Connor v. Boeing N. American, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 949, 953 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (applying reasoning of Martinez-Ferrer to allow toxic tort plaintiff to continue with portion of claim even though some portion of claim was timebarred). Non-California decisions: Anderson v. W. R. Grace & Co., 628 F. Supp n.7 (D. Mass. 1986) (denying plaintiffs damages for the increased risk of harm and distinguishing Martinez-Ferrer); Hall v. Romero, 685 P. 2d 757, 762 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (distinguishing Martinez-Ferrer and dismissing plaintiff s claim as untimely); Braswell v. Flintoke Mines, Ltd., 723 F. 2d 527, 533 (7th Cir. 1983) (upholding dismissal of asbestos exposure claims as untimely; citing Martinez- Ferrer in dissenting opinion). 33 O Connor, 114 F. Supp. 2d Only three months before the O Connor decision, a different federal court rejected a plaintiff s argument that even if the statute of limitations began running on a particular date, new and separate losses sustained later in time served to re-start the statute of limitations. Rosenblatt, 87 F. Supp. 2d at In rejecting that theory, the court cited and followed the holdings in Miller v. Lakeside Village Condo. Ass n, Inc., 1 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796 (1991), and Bennett v. Shahhal, 75 Cal. App. 4th 384, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 (1999), and specifically refused to adopt the reasoning or holding in Martinez-Ferrer, 105 Cal. App. 3d 316. NORIEGA CHIROPRACTIC CLINICS, INC. Clinica Para Los Latinos Serving The Latin Community Is proud to announce the Grand Opening of WHITTIER HEALTH SERVICES Bailey Ave. Suite F, Whittier, CA (562) PERSONAL INJURY AND WORKER S COMP CASES ACCEPTED ON LIEN BASIS. *MONTEBELLO HEALTH SERVICES 901 W. Whittier Blvd. Montebello, CA (323) CRENSHAW HEALTH CENTER 4243 S. Crenshaw Blvd. Los Angeles, CA (323) *ONTARIO HEALTH SERVICES 334 N. Euclid Ave. Ontario, CA (909) HUNTINGTON PARK HEALTH CENTER 3033 E. Florence Ave. Huntington Park, CA (323) POMONA HEALTH CENTER 1180 N. White Ave. Pomona, CA (909) PACOIMA HEALTH CENTER Van Nuys Blvd. Pacoima, CA (818) EL MONTE HEALTH CENTER 2163 Durfee Rd. El Monte, CA (626) HIGHLAND PARK HEALTH CENTER 5306 N. Figueroa St. Highland Park, CA (323) SO. CENTRAL HEALTH CENTER 4721 S. Broadway Los Angeles, CA (323) *Medical facilities in Montebello and Ontario only LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

More information

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388 Page 1 PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388 COMMON PLEAS COURT OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2011 Pa. Dist. & Cnty.

More information

But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430

But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell

More information

Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes

Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes

More information

Case 2:08-cv-01740-MLCF-DEK Document 37 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:08-cv-01740-MLCF-DEK Document 37 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:08-cv-01740-MLCF-DEK Document 37 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ARTHUR MONTEGUT, SR. CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 08-1740 BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

More information

No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 427 F.3d 1048; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22999

No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 427 F.3d 1048; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22999 RONALD WARRUM, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSEPH F. SAYYAH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT

More information

WikiLeaks Document Release

WikiLeaks Document Release WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Filed 12/18/14 Zulli v. Balfe CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

29 of 41 DOCUMENTS. SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

29 of 41 DOCUMENTS. SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. Page 1 29 of 41 DOCUMENTS SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. D062406 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR Filed 4/21/99 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP., Petitioner, v. No. B126555 (W.C.A.B. No. 96 LBO

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Affirmed and Opinion filed February 7, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-01144-CV ANTONIO GARCIA, JR., Appellant V. PALESTINE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, n/k/a MEMORIAL MOTHER FRANCES HOSPITAL,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HOWARD A. SCOTT, EXECUTOR OF IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ESTATE OF ALBERT L. SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED AND LAVERNE SCOTT, IN HER OWN RIGHT,

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN THE THE STATE MARLEN REZA, Appellant, vs. STACEY HUDSON, M.D., Respondent. No. 54140 FILED MAY 17 2011 TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERK ORDER REVERSAL AND REMANDBY- -- DEPUTY CLER This is an appeal from a district

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072. Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072. Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1072 Yvette Ford, Appellant, vs. Minneapolis Public Schools, Respondent. Filed December 15, 2014 Reversed and remanded Peterson, Judge Hennepin County District

More information

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

S.B. 88 126th General Assembly (As Introduced)

S.B. 88 126th General Assembly (As Introduced) Elizabeth Dominic Bill Analysis Legislative Service Commission S.B. 88 126th General Assembly (As Introduced) Sens. Coughlin, Goodman BILL SUMMARY Requires the Superintendent of Insurance to establish

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

MEMORANDUM. Preface. Brief Answer

MEMORANDUM. Preface. Brief Answer MEMORANDUM From: Mitchell S. Cohen, Esquire Re: Decisions Governing the Issue of Secondary Exposure Asbestos Cases in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and States of New Jersey and New York Date: 11 November

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with

More information

NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November 2010. Appeal by Respondents from orders entered 14 September 2009 by

NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November 2010. Appeal by Respondents from orders entered 14 September 2009 by NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 November 2010 CARL B. KINGSTON, Petitioner, v. Rockingham County No. 09 CVS 1286 LYON CONSTRUCTION, INC., and PMA INSURANCE GROUP, Respondents. Appeal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A136605

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A136605 Filed 8/28/13 Shade v. Freedhand CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY RODERICK STILLWELL, Submitted: May 8, 2014 Decided: August 29, 2014

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY RODERICK STILLWELL, Submitted: May 8, 2014 Decided: August 29, 2014 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY RODERICK STILLWELL, Plaintiff, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants. ASBESTOS C.A. No.: N12C-09-071 ASB JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Submitted:

More information

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT GRECO V. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2014-00085074-CU-BT-CTL

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT GRECO V. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2014-00085074-CU-BT-CTL NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT GRECO V. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2014-00085074-CU-BT-CTL The Superior Court has authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation

More information

Decided: March 27, 2015. S14G0919. GALA et al. v. FISHER et al. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fisher

Decided: March 27, 2015. S14G0919. GALA et al. v. FISHER et al. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fisher In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 27, 2015 S14G0919. GALA et al. v. FISHER et al. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Fisher v. Gala,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 53. v. : T.C. NO. 07CV213

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 53. v. : T.C. NO. 07CV213 [Cite as Stanley v. Community Hosp., 2011-Ohio-1290.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO GEORGE STANLEY, et al. : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 53 v. : T.C. NO. 07CV213 COMMUNITY

More information

Commonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals

Commonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals RENDERED: JANUARY 6, 2006, 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2004-CA-002178-MR JUDY L. COMBS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF VIRGIL COMBS APPELLANT

More information

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: THOMAS P. DONEGAN, Judge. Affirmed.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: THOMAS P. DONEGAN, Judge. Affirmed. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 15, 2000 Cornelia G. Clark Acting Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version

More information

REAL PROPERTY QUESTION CORNER: (By Kraettli Q. Epperson) THE ELUSIVE LEGAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ATTORNEY TITLE OPINIONS

REAL PROPERTY QUESTION CORNER: (By Kraettli Q. Epperson) THE ELUSIVE LEGAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ATTORNEY TITLE OPINIONS REAL PROPERTY QUESTION CORNER: (By Kraettli Q. Epperson) THE ELUSIVE LEGAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ATTORNEY TITLE OPINIONS (PARTS I AND II OF II PARTS) PUBLISHED IN THE OKLAHOMA COUNTY BAR

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD. Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE

More information

TO: ALL PERSONS AND BUSINESSES WITH A VERIZON.NET EMAIL ADDRESS

TO: ALL PERSONS AND BUSINESSES WITH A VERIZON.NET EMAIL ADDRESS TO: ALL PERSONS AND BUSINESSES WITH A VERIZON.NET EMAIL ADDRESS This Notice Is Given To Inform You Of The Proposed Settlement Of A Class Action. If The Settlement Is Approved By The Court, Certain Benefits

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE GERALD J. BAMBERGER, et al., ) No. ED92319 ) Appellants, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court vs. ) of St. Louis County ) 08SL-CC01435 CHARLES

More information

to add a number of affirmative defenses, including an allegation that Henry s claim was barred

to add a number of affirmative defenses, including an allegation that Henry s claim was barred REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed May 11, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00616-CV DOROTHY HENRY, Appellant V. BASSAM ZAHRA, Appellee On Appeal from the

More information

Alani Golanski, for appellants. Christian H. Gannon, for respondent. A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against

Alani Golanski, for appellants. Christian H. Gannon, for respondent. A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against ================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

RONALD WHITE. McTEAGUE, HIGBEE, CASE, COHEN, WHITNEY & TOKER, P.A. [ 1] Ronald White appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court

RONALD WHITE. McTEAGUE, HIGBEE, CASE, COHEN, WHITNEY & TOKER, P.A. [ 1] Ronald White appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2002 ME 160 Docket: Cum-02-370 Argued: October 8, 2002 Decided: October 23, 2002 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MELISSA DUNCAN, a single woman,) No. 1 CA-CV 10-0265 ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) DEPARTMENT D v. ) ) O P I N I O N PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE)

More information

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action

More information

Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172

Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS

More information

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 9/19/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LAS VEGAS LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-IA-00181-SCT VICKSBURG HEALTHCARE, LLC d/b/a RIVER REGION HEALTH SYSTEM v. CLARA DEES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/22/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK, JR.

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01365-CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01365-CV REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed April 3, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01365-CV UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellant V. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,

More information

ORDER GRANTING TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY / HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE S MOTION TO INTERVENE

ORDER GRANTING TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY / HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE S MOTION TO INTERVENE Pulitano v. Thayer St. Associates, Inc., No. 407-9-06 Wmcv (Wesley, J., Oct. 23, 2009) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: Attorney for Irmina Gradus-Pizlo, M.D.: DAVID J. LANGE Stewart & Irwin, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CYNTHIA S. ROSE Baxter James & Rose,

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 5/28/15 Lopez v. Fishel Co. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009 JOE HENRY MOORE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No. 20-101-047 Nancy C. Miller

More information

UTAH. Past medical expenses may be recovered. Plaintiffs must show that they have been injured and,

UTAH. Past medical expenses may be recovered. Plaintiffs must show that they have been injured and, UTAH Rick L. Rose Kristine M. Larsen RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 43585 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 Facsimile: (801) 532-7543 rrose@rqn.com

More information

2016 IL App (1st) 152359-U. SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016. No. 1-15-2359 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2016 IL App (1st) 152359-U. SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016. No. 1-15-2359 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2016 IL App (1st 152359-U SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016 No. 1-15-2359 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON No. 157 April 16, 2014 317 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Maricela RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST RENAL CLINIC, Defendant-Respondent, and RAYMOND PETRILLO, MD, and Does 1 to

More information

2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 01/23/14. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed 10/4/13; pub. order 10/28/13 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., D062406 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 8/8/14 Opn filed after rehearing CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MICHAEL M. MOJTAHEDI, Plaintiff and

More information

IN COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED

IN COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 6, 1998 Marilyn L. Graves Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will

More information

v. Record No. 960876 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 18, 1997 ROBERT J. PARISER, M.D., ET AL.

v. Record No. 960876 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 18, 1997 ROBERT J. PARISER, M.D., ET AL. Present: All the Justices LINDA M. ST. GEORGE v. Record No. 960876 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 18, 1997 ROBERT J. PARISER, M.D., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK Marc

More information

2014 IL App (1st) 122440-U. No. 1-12-2440 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2014 IL App (1st) 122440-U. No. 1-12-2440 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 122440-U SECOND DIVISION July 29, 2014 No. 1-12-2440 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Varner v. Ford Motor Co., 2007-Ohio-2640.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88390 YVONNE VARNER, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 2:14-cv-01072-ABC-JC Document 31 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:819 Present: The Honorable Audrey B. Collins Angela Bridges None Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U. No. 1-14-1179 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U. No. 1-14-1179 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U THIRD DIVISION May 20, 2015 No. 1-14-1179 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 4, 2014 Decided December 30, 2014 No. 13-7185 STEPHEN A. WANNALL, Personal Representative of the Estate of John M. Tyler

More information

Case 1:06-cv-00429-ACK-BMK Document 110 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 3465 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Case 1:06-cv-00429-ACK-BMK Document 110 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 3465 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII Case 1:06-cv-00429-ACK-BMK Document 110 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 3465 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, CHARO

More information

Choice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims

Choice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims Choice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims By David T. Biderman and Judith B. Gitterman Choice of law questions in asbestos litigation can be highly complex. The court determining choice of law must often

More information

Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained

Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained A Presentation for CLE Employment Law Conference 2013 Pan Pacific Hotel Vancouver, BC May 9, 2013 Carman J. Overholt,

More information

WREN ROBICHAUX NO. 2012-CA-0265 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRACTICAL NURSE EXAMINERS FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

WREN ROBICHAUX NO. 2012-CA-0265 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRACTICAL NURSE EXAMINERS FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA WREN ROBICHAUX VERSUS LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRACTICAL NURSE EXAMINERS * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2012-CA-0265 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS

More information

Commonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals

Commonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals RENDERED: DECEMBER 5, 2003; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2002-CA-001497-MR SHARON JO ANN HARRISON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session CONNIE REDMOND v. WALMART STORES, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 13C3247 Joseph P. Binkley,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT MEMPHIS February 24, 2010 Session STEPHANIE JONES and HOWARD JONES v. RENGA I. VASU, M.D., THE NEUROLOGY CLINIC, and METHODIST LEBONHEUR HOSPITAL Appeal from the

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 30 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff - Appellant,

More information

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)

More information

Case: 4:13-cv-02652-SL Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/02/14 1 of 10. PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 4:13-cv-02652-SL Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/02/14 1 of 10. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 4:13-cv-02652-SL Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/02/14 1 of 10. PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JERRY P. TAMARKIN, et al., ) CASE NO. 4:13cv2652 ) )

More information

Case 6:14-bk-09462-CCJ Doc 48 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 7

Case 6:14-bk-09462-CCJ Doc 48 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 7 Case 6:14-bk-09462-CCJ Doc 48 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 7 ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2015 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION www.flmb.uscourts.gov In re: RICHARD S.

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784. Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784. Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784 Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ. In re Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company, Petitioners. Continental

More information

[Cite as Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp., 125 Ohio St.3d 358, 2010-Ohio-1926.]

[Cite as Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp., 125 Ohio St.3d 358, 2010-Ohio-1926.] [Cite as Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp., 125 Ohio St.3d 358, 2010-Ohio-1926.] RIEDEL ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp., 125 Ohio

More information

TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians

TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK J. DIETRICK THOMAS D. COLLIGNON MICHAEL B. KNIGHT Collignon & Dietrick, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN E. PIERCE Plainfield, Indiana

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SHARON SUMERA, NO. 66944-3-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. GREGORY BEASLEY and JANE DOE UNPUBLISHED OPINION BEASLEY, husband and wife and the marital community

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U. No. 14-1710 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U. No. 14-1710 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U SECOND DIVISION November 10, 2015 No. 14-1710 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S INITIAL BRIEF ON JURISDICTION AA-53816-5/reo/20330947 L.T. CASE NO. 5D06-3639 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RANDALL B. WHITNEY, M.D., JAMES SCOTT PENDERGRAFT, IV, M.D., and ORLANDO WOMEN'S CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioners,

More information

CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D09-0765. Rhonda B. Boggess of Taylor, Day, Currie, Boyd & Johnson, Jacksonville, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ATHENA F. GRAINGER, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF SAMUEL GUS FELOS, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District STEVE AUSTIN, Appellant, v. JOHN SCHIRO, M.D., Respondent. WD78085 OPINION FILED: May 26, 2015 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clinton County, Missouri

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. NANCY TAYLOR and CYRIL E. TAYLOR, No. 214, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. NANCY TAYLOR and CYRIL E. TAYLOR, No. 214, 2010 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NANCY TAYLOR and CYRIL E. TAYLOR, No. 214, 2010 Plaintiffs Below- Appellants, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and v. for New Castle

More information

In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014

In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, v. GREG ROLAND SMITH, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 Appeal from

More information

FILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

FILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713

More information

2015 IL App (2d) 141168-U No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

2015 IL App (2d) 141168-U No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT No. 2-14-1168 Order filed October 15, 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A143511

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A143511 Filed 11/26/14 Boyd v. Super. Ct. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division. Chapter 11

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division. Chapter 11 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division IN RE: GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et al., Debtors. 1 Case No. 10-BK-31607 Chapter 11 Jointly Administered

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana

More information

Oklahoma Supreme Court Declares Oklahoma s Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009 Unconstitutional

Oklahoma Supreme Court Declares Oklahoma s Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009 Unconstitutional Oklahoma Supreme Court Declares Oklahoma s Lawsuit Reform Act of 2009 Unconstitutional On June 4, 2013, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued two opinions invalidating as unconstitutional numerous Oklahoma

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA BARBRA R. JOYNER, Appellant, CASE NO.: 2012-CV-000003-A-O Lower Case No.: 2010-CC-010676-O v. ONE THOUSAND OAKS, INC.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND STANLEY M. GRABILL, JR., * Plaintiff * * v. * CIVIL No. JKB-13-039 CORIZON, INC., * Defendant * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM Stanley

More information

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THIS MATTER comes on for consideration of DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THIS MATTER comes on for consideration of DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE DISTRICT COURT, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO Court address: P.O. Box 2980 270 South Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 DATE FILED: July 29, 2014 2:12 PM CASE NUMBER: 2013CV2249 Phone Number: (719) 452-5279

More information

2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898

2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898 2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information