Free Articles  >>  Legal >>  Page 228  >> 

Temecula Employment Lawyer Ray Mandlekar Gives An Employment Insurance Case Study

›Three Employee Wage Suits Against Companies Recently Named As Class Actions - The storm of wage & hour class actions versus employers marches on unabated. Class action certification allows the claims to move forward on behalf of not simply the employees bringing the lawsuit, but on behalf of all employees. Three such cases from the end of last year are:

Wilson v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133304 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2010) - Claims by workers for allegedly unreimbursed expenses on personal vehicles used to travel to off-site conventions and seminars, under California Labor Code §2802;

Lemus v. H&R Block Enters., LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133697 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2010) - Claims by employees for alleged failure to provide correct wage statements and to disburse all earnings due at time of termination, under California Labor Code §§226, 203; and

Stiller v. Costco, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140297 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2010) - Claims by workers for allegedly being refused pay while obligated to remain on-premises after the finish of their work day.

›Ninth Circuit Holds Insurance Company Wrongfully Declined to Defend Claim Against Insured Company; Reaffirms Broad Duty to Defend in California - Companies buy liability insurance for the objective of accessing finances to pay a judgment or settlement in the event the business is successfully sued. In addition, such policies obligate the insurer to pay the cost of defending against the court procedings - i.e., pay for defense lawyers to represent the insured.
This duty is known as the "duty to defend." In California, it has long been accepted that the duty to defend is complex. In Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal. 4th 287 (1993), the California Supreme Court ruled that "a liability insurer owes a broad duty to defend its insured against claims that create a potential for indemnity. . . . [T]he carrier must defend a suit which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy." Thus, when the insured is sued on claims which only have the potential to cause the insurer's duty to pay a judgment, the insurer is obligated to defend the suit.
Not long ago, in Hudson Ins. Co. v. Colony Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the breadth of the duty to defend. In the ligitation, the insurance policy in question allowed coverage if the insured was ever sued for slogan infringement, but did not include coverage for trademark infringement. The insured business was sued for trademark infringement. The claim against the insured, however, while failing to include a formal claim for "slogan infringement," did allege evidence that could potentially support a claim for slogan infringement. The details indicated the plaintiff's belief in its right to retain ownership of a certain slogan, and its belief that the insured defendant was using it unlawfully. But for the reason that the complaint failed to contain a formal claim for slogan infringement, the insurer refused to provide a defense.
The court held that this was wrong. This was because the insurer's obligation to defend depends not on the labels on the claims in the lawsuit, but on the facts alleged within. Again, these facts suggested a suit for slogan infringement was feasible - thus the insurer was required to impart a defense. The court reiterated the rule that any indecision in the complaint in the proceedings against the insured must be settled in favor of finding coverage.
Hudson is a long-awaited decision for California businesses that may require broad defense coverage under their liability policies. The verdict limits the insurer's capability to legally deny coverage based on the technical labels of the claims in the suit filed versus the insured.

This article is intended to convey accurate general information concerning the subject matter covered, but should not be construed as legal advice, which would be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the client.

About Author Ray A. Mandlekar :

Ray A. Mandlekar is a <a href="" target="_blank">Temecula litigation attorney</a>  practicing in the field of business, employment and investment litigation.  He is a former partner of national law firm headquartered in San Diego.  <a href="" target="_blank">Temecula Business Attorney</a>, Ray A. Mandlekar

Article Source:
Article Url:

Article Added on Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Other Articles by Ray A. Mandlekar

Employment Litigation Update from Temecula Employment Lawyer Ray A Mandlekar
Employer Faces Liability Under WARN Act; Voluntarily Departed Exception Held Inapplicable To Employees Who Depart Because of Closing - The Worker Adjustment and Retraining and Notification (WARN) Act of 1989 covers employers having 100 or more qualified employees. It stipulates that employers serve written notification to employees telling them that they might face layoff due to an anticipated closing or sale of the company, if such is the reality, 60 days in advance. To this end, companies...

Litigation Update from Top Temecula Business and Franchise Lawyer
›New Proposed Bill In California Would Amend Labor Code to Bar Mandatory Employee Agreements to Litigate Arguments Outside California or Apply Non-California Law - On February 7, 2011, California Assembly Member Sandré R. Swanson (D-Alameda) created A.B. 267. The Bill would amend the California Labor Code by adding a new §924. As stated in the Legislative Counsel's Digest, the consequence would be to make void and unenforceable as against public policy any provision in an employment contract...

Temecula Business and Employment Lawyer Explains Eminent Employment Policy Adaptations
› State Supreme Court to Decide Employee Meal Break Issue - The California Supreme Court is ready to resolve an issue of significance to employers in the restaurant and service industry. California law entitles a covered worker to take one or more meal breaks if the employee works a selected quantity of hours in a workday. At issue in the case of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal. App. 4th 25 (2008), is whether employers must simply provide employees with the opportunity to...

Temecula Business Lawyer Ray A Mandlekar Business and Insurance Legal Update
Another Ninth Circuit Decision Reaffirming Breadth of Insurer's Responsibility to Defend - In a new case the Ninth Circuit ruled than an insurer had a duty to defend its insured, reaffirming the expansive nature of this duty in California. Goerner v. Axis Reinsurance Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21624 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2010), concerned an insurance company's refusal to defend its insured, a corporate CEO, pursuant to a Directors & Officer (D&O) liability policy. The D&O policy stated that the...

Temecula Employment and Franchise Lawyer Provides California Minimum Wage Update
Two California Assembly members have introduced bills that would change the California minimum wage policy. On December 6, 2010, Assembly member Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) admitted A.B. 10, which would change California Labor Code §1182.12. The proposed law would bump up the minimum wage, currently $8.00 an hour, to $8.50 an hour, effective January 1, 2012. In addition, the Bill would grant for an adjustment to the minimum wage on January 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, relative to the...

Temecula Business Lawyer Provides Business and Employment Litigation Updates
›EEOC Reports Job Bias Charges Hit Record High in 2010 - Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the federal agency that enforces numerous federal antidiscrimination employment laws) announced that it received a record amount of charges from employees in FY 2010. The EEOC's press release details that last year, for the first time ever, claims for retaliation - i.e., claims that an employer took manevolent action against an employee for that employee's act of opposing a...

Temecula Litigation Attorney Provides Employment Law Update
› U.S. Department of Labor to Refer Complaining Employees to Plaintiff's Attorneys - The Wage & Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor regulates the minimum wage, overtime and bookkeeping provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It gets employee complaints about potential infractions of these acts, and tries to resolve them through conciliation, compromise or litigation. In spite of the fact that the WHD has an increased...

Murrieta Business and Employment Litigation Lawyer Offers Business and Employment Case Study
›U.S. Supreme Court Rules FLSA Anti-Retaliation Provision Covers Verbal Complaints to Employer - Pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is the case of Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2009), an action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which rules on wages and working conditions. According to the employee plaintiff, the physical placement of timeclocks the employees used to clock in and out for shifts wrongly prevented employees from...

Temecula Business and Debt Collection Attorney Provides Litigation Update
›Bill Introduced to Require that Judge, Not Jury, Determine Amount of Punitive Damages Award - In civil cases, a judgement of punitive damages is sometimes available to the plaintiff. The reasons for punitive damages are to punish a offender for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff and to discourage comparable conduct in the future. They are available when the plaintiff can adduce clear and convincing proof that the defendant acted with fraud, oppression or malice. Under this model,...

Business Law Update from Temecula Business and Employment Attorney
Court of Appeal Examines Interplay of Attorney Fee-Shifting Statutes of California Labor Code - A prevailing party in litigation may force the other side to pay its court fees only in limited circumstances, such as where a statute or contract allows for the payment. This is what is known as the American Rule. Legal systems of some other countries routinely require the loser in a case to pay the other side's attorney's fees, but ours generally does not. Because attorney's fees to bring or...

Click here to see More Articles by Ray A. Mandlekar
Publishers / Webmasters
Article ID: 281833
DELINK URL from Authors Bio
REMOVE Article
Tell A Friend
Leave A Comment!
Download this article in PDF
Report Article!
Search through all the articles:

246 Users Online!!
Related Articles:
Latest Articles:
Legal >> Top 50 Articles on Legal
Category - >
Advertising Advice Affiliate Programs Automobiles
Be Your Own Mentor Careers Communication Consumers
CopyWriting Crime Domain Names DoT com Entrepreneur Corner
Ebooks Ecommerce Education Email
Entertainment Environment Family Finance And Business
Food & Drink Gardening Health & Fitness Hobbies
Home Business Home Improvement Humour House Holds
Internet And Computers Kiddos and Teens Legal Matters Mail Order
Management Marketing Marriage MetaPhysical
Motivational MultiMedia Multi Level Marketing NewsLetters
Pets Psychology Religion Parenting
Politics Sales Science Search Engine Optimization
Site Promotion Sports Technology Travel
Web Development Web Hosting WeightLoss Women's Corner
Writing Miscellaneous Articles Real Estate Arts And Crafts

Disclaimer: The information presented and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of and/or its owners.

Copyright © AwareINDIA. All rights reserved || Privacy Policy || Terms Of Use || Author Guidelines || Free Articles
FAQs Link To Us || Submit An Article || Free Downloads|| Contact Us || Site Map  || Advertise with Us ||
Click here for Special webhosting packages for visitors of this website only!
Vastu Shastra

India Hosting Services Provided By AwareIndia

Company IDS