New CA Civil Procedure/Insurance Case
California Case Summaries™
Know the New Cases to Win Your Cases
Every year California courts publish over 500 new civil cases, and many of them significantly change California law. California civil attorneys need to know the new case law!
The bad news - it's hard to keep up because of the number of new cases, many cases are 50-100 pages long, and California courts also publish many new cases in the areas of criminal law, juvenile law and family law.
The good news - there's now a quick, easy way to always know the new civil case law in your practice areas: California Case Summaries™. I prepare one-paragraph summaries, that can be read in 2 minutes and are organized by legal topic, so California lawyers always know the new case law to work up their active cases better, get bigger settlements, and win more summary judgments and trials to make more money. For less than 1 billable hour per month, you'll always know the new case law to get a competitive advantage over your opponents. To subscribe, click here.
Join Our Email List: To get my free summaries of every new civil case published by the California Supreme Court in 2022, click here.
Below is a free sample of one of my new civil case summaries.
Can a UIM Plaintiff Get Pre-Judgment Interest if the UIM Carrier Rejects a CCP 998 Offer?
In a personal injury case, a plaintiff case can get pre-judgment interest if the defendant's carrier rejects a CCP 998 offer. But what happens when the plaintiff is arbitrating an uninsured motorist claim? Last month, the Sixth District Court of Appeal addressed this issue.
New CA Civil Code/Insurance Decision
Glassman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 3144465: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for prejudment interest, under Civil Code section 3287(a), from the date of plaintiff’s CCP section 998 offer to settle her uninsured motorist (UIM) claim for $999,999.99 (the UIM umbrella policy limit was $1 million). Plaintiff won the UIM arbitration and was awarded the $1 million policy limit. Plaintiff could not obtain prejudgment interest under Civil Code 3291 because the California Supreme Court, in Pilimai v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Co. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 133, ruled that UIM proceedings are not actions for personal injury sounding in tort to which section 3291 applies, are instead in the nature of an action in contract arising out of a policy of insurance. In this case plaintiff sought pre-judgment interest under Civil Code section 3287(a). To obtain pre-judgment interest plaintiff had to show: she was entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, the right to recover was vested on a particular day, and the defendant knew was able to calculate from reasonably available information the amount of the plaintiff’s liquidated claim owed as of a particular day. The trial court properly denied plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest under section 3287(a) because the amount of her policy-limit claim for excess UIM benefits was not certain or capable of being made certain and this uncertainty was not fixed by plaintiff’s CCP section 998 policy-limit offer. The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiff’s argument that an insured’s prevailing CCP section 998 offer in a UIM proceeding should effectively liquidate the insured’s claim in the amount and as of the date of the offer under section 3287(a), mandating an award of prejudgment interest. Moreover, the record did not include evidence that defendant had knowledge that plaintiff’s economic losses or special damages resulting from the accident—her hard costs—already exceeded the umbrella-policy limits when plaintiff’s CCP section 998 offer was made. (C.A. 6th, April 28, 2023.)
Mediation, Arbitration & Referee Services
I help attorneys and their clients settle cases as a mediator, fairly decide cases as an arbitrator, and fairly decide issues as a referee at ADR Services, Inc. I handle cases in the areas of business, employment, insurance (bad faith, coverage, UIM) probate (trusts and estates), real property, and torts (elder abuse, medical malpractice, personal injury, product liability and wrongful death). As a Zoom expert, I conduct Zoom and in-person hearings throughout California. To schedule a matter, please contact my case managers at ADR Services, Inc., Haward Cho, (213) 683-1600,
[email protected] or Rachael Boughan, (619) 233-1323, [email protected].
Stay safe and healthy.
Best regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
California Case Summaries™
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee
Master Lawyer Mentoring™
CA Civil Trial Attorney Since 1980
ABOTA Member Since 1995
Past President San Diego County Bar Assn., SD ABOTA Chapter
Phone: (619) 990-4312.
Email: [email protected]