California Case Summaries New California Civil Cases by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. These recent cases summarized by Monty A. McIntyre are from his publication California Case Summaries™. Monty prepares short summaries (one paragraph), organized by legal topic, of every new published California civil and family law case that California lawyers can subscribe to on either a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. Monty also offers specialized practice area annual summaries in the areas of Employment, Family Law, Real Property and Torts. For more information go to cacasesummaries.com. A California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of ABOTA since 1995, a past president of the SDCBA and San Diego ABOTA, and also an expert Zoom user, Monty serves as a mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. handling cases throughout California in the areas of business, elder abuse, employment/wage & hour, insurance bad faith, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, personal injury, real property and wrongful death. Web: www.adrservices.com/neutrals/mcintyre-monty/ To schedule a matter, contact Monty’s case manager Haward Cho, (619) 233-1323 or haward@adrservices.com.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Insurance McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co. (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 3853061: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, which had affirmed a judgment for defendant, following a jury trial, concluding that Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 did not apply retroactively to plaintiff’s term life insurance policy, which had been terminated by defendant to failure to pay the premium. The California Supreme Court held that sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 apply to all life insurance policies in force as of January 1, 2013—regardless of when those policies had originally been issued. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. (August 30, 2021.)
Torts Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 3671594: The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. Declining to create a third exception to the rule in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, the California Supreme Court ruled that unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises
24
Attorney Journals Orange County | Volume 189, 2021
that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury (Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202), a landowner will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises. (August 19, 2021.) Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 4097782: The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal that found that defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm), the hirer of an independent contractor, was liable for the third degree burns that plaintiff (an employee of the independent contractor) suffered to over one-third of the surface area of his body after he triggered an arc flash from a circuit he did not realize was “live” with flowing electricity. The California Supreme Court ruled that defendant Qualcomm owed no tort duty to plaintiff, the parts specialist working for Qualcomm’s contractor, at the time of plaintiff’s injuries. Although Qualcomm performed the partial power-down process that preceded the contractor’s work and resulted in the presence of the live electrical circuit, the Supreme Court concluded that under the facts of this case Qualcomm neither failed to sufficiently disclose the hazard under Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 664, nor affirmatively contributed to the injury under Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202. It also concluded that the
