Case Name:	Energy Insurance Mutual Limited v. Ace American Insurance Company Part 1/2		08/10/2017
Summary:	Filed 7/11/17 Certified for Publication 8/10/17 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR .             ENERGY INSURANCE MUTUAL LIMITED, Plaintiff and Appellant, .             v. .             ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. .             A140656 .             (Contra Costa County Super. .           "SECTION V—DEFINITIONS .           "[¶] . [¶] .           "M. SEPARATION OF INSUREDS   .           "Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance this policy applies: .           "1. .           "And, the professional services exclusion read in part: .           "PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY EXCLUSION [] .           "[¶] .
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal this week ordered publication of its decision finding that Ace American Insurance Co. did not owe coverage for an insured’s alleged negligence that led to a fatal pipeline explosion.
Citation:	A140656
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC11-0060

Case Name:	Energy Insurance Mutual Limited v. Ace Insurance Company Part 2/2		08/10/2017
Summary:	(1 New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition (2009) Self-insured Retentions Versus Large or Matching Deductibles, § 1A. 02[3][a], p. 1A-10 (Rel. According to ACE, the AEGIS policy functions as primary insurance and the EIM policy is a first-level excess above it. (4 New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, supra, Excess Insurance and Umbrella Coverage, § 24. 02 [2][c], p. 24-15 (Rel. )  In its brief, ACE refers to the policy as both an "excess commercial umbrella liability" and an "umbrella policy. "(4 New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition, supra, Excess Insurance and Umbrella Coverage, § 24. 02 [3] & [4], pp.
Note:	The 1st District Court of Appeal this week ordered publication of its decision finding that Ace American Insurance Co. did not owe coverage for an insured’s alleged negligence that led to a fatal pipeline explosion.
Citation:	A140656
WCC Citation:	Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC11-0060

Case Name:	Engle v. Endlich		09/22/1992
Summary:	MARY L. ENGLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HAROLD ENDLICH, Defendant and Respondent. Procedural and Factual Statement On June 26, 1986, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants Coast Elevator Company (Coast) and Dr. Harold Endlich (Endlich) for recovery of damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained on July 1, 1985. It found that the settling defendant, Coast, was free of negligence but that Endlich and Hospital were each 50 percent negligent. On June 21, 1990, following a hearing, the court granted the motion of Endlich for reduction of the judgment in the amount of the workers' compensation lien. These sums were deducted from the $802,851 jury award to determine the net amount due on the judgment from Endlich.
Note:	No double recovery in damage award; reduced by compensation received.
Citation:	9 Cal.App.4th 1152, 57 CCC 617
WCC Citation:	WCC 24301992 CA

Case Name:	Entin v. Superior Court of LA County		08/20/2012
Summary:	ENTIN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALLEN M. ENTIN, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Real Party in Interest. Entin filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order directing the superior court to grant his request for a jury trial. We issued an order to show cause and now conclude that the trial court erred in denying Entin a jury trial. Entin filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order from this court directing the superior court "to vacate its order . Although the California Supreme Court acknowledged that the insurer had not appealed the jury trial issue, the court concluded that the trial court had properly decided the issue, explaining: "The general rule is .
Note:	A physician who claimed to be totally disabled by migraine headaches was entitled to a jury trial for his coverage dispute with his disability insurance carrier.
Citation:	B239642
WCC Citation:	WCC 39232012 CA

Case Name:	Erickson v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group/Kaiser Permanente		12/28/2006
Summary:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CARYL ERICKSON, Applicant, vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP/KAISER PERMANENTE, Permissibly Self-Insured, Defendant(s). POM 0246580 POM 0246582 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Defendant, Southern California Permanente Medical Group/Kaiser Permanente, seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings and Award issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 16, 2006. Dr. Lobley found that applicant's neck disability precluded her from substantial work, from heavy lifting, and from work above shoulder level. Further, the WCJ concluded that applicant's conclusively existing low back disability overlaps (and is subsumed by) her current neck and fibromyalgia disability. Thus, Dykes applied a variant of the "formula C" that the California Supreme Court had considered (and rejected) in Fuentes v. Worker's Comp.
Note:	Applicant's stipulated award of 25% permanent disability shall be apportioned in accordance with Labor Code section 4664, but the calculation of the amount of permanent disability indemnity due after apportionment is deferred.
Citation:	72 CCC 103
WCC Citation:	WCC 32022006 CA

Case Name:	Ervin v. Estate of Beck		07/10/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE ROLAND ERVIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ESTATE OF JOHANNA LITTLE BECK et al. , Defendants and Respondents. SUMMARY Roland Ervin, representing himself, obtained the default of two persons, William Little Jr. and the Estate of Johanna Little-Beck, in this action. Also, in an Orange County probate proceeding involving the Estate of Johanna Little-Beck, Ervin has file creditor's claims. The defendants included Johanna Little-Beck, The Cary Beck Land Trust, Robert C. Beck (Estate of), and Freda A. Wyckoff. It also appears that Ervin has taken the default of both William D. Little Jr. and the Estate of Johanna Little-Beck.
Note:	[Unpublished] The proper course of action, given the default setting, was not outright dismissal with prejudice, but a stay, so as to allow Ervin a chance to amend his complaint.
Citation:	G039060
WCC Citation:	WCC 33952008 CA

Case Name:	Escobedo v. Marshalls; CNA Ins. Co.		04/18/2005
Summary:	With regard to apportionment, Dr. Ovadia stated: "Ms. Escobedo's left knee residuals are directly related to the October 28, 2002 injury. Section 4663 as amended by SB 899 provides: "(a) Apportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation. "(c) In order for a physician's report to be considered complete on the issue of permanent disability, it must include an apportionment determination. "(d) An employee who claims an industrial injury shall, upon request, disclose all previous permanent disabilities or physical impairments. "In this case, however, there is no assertion that applicant's preexisting arthritis was exacerbated or accelerated by her industrial injury.
Note:	Steps to apply apportionment under SB 899.
Citation:	70 CCC 604 (2005)
WCC Citation:	WCC 30942005 CA

Case Name:	Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc. Part 1/3		07/07/2017
Summary:	Filed 7/7/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .              LILIANA ESPEJO et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, .             v. .              THE COPLEY PRESS, INC. , Defendant and Appellant. .              D065397 .              (Super. .            The case was tried to the court in May and June of 2013. .            Plaintiffs' lead counsel and associate counsel filed separate motions for attorney fees under section 1021. 5 and section 2802. [¶] .
Note:
Citation:	D065397
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. Nos. 37-2009-00082322-CU-OE-CTL, 3

Case Name:	Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc. Part 2/3		07/07/2017
Summary:	The court suggested that the threshold issue of whether the carriers were employees or independent contractors was a jury question. And I would like to see us avoid second shot [i. e. , jury trial], and I think you would too. ", and we have a little more flexibility on how to do it because we've done this a few times. ".            Section 2802, subdivision (a) requires an employer to indemnify its employees for all necessary expenditures they incur in discharging their duties. .          UT asserts that business expenses under section 2802 are not recoverable as restitution under section 17200.
Note:
Citation:	D065397
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. Nos. 37-2009-00082322-CU-OE-CTL,

Case Name:	Espejo v. The Copley Press, Inc. Part 3/3		07/07/2017
Summary:	The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. The trial court may make its own determination of the value of the services contrary to, or without the necessity for, expert testimony. '(Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1132 (Ketchum), citing Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25, 49 (Serrano III). )The Ketchum court noted that the lodestar "may be adjusted by the court based on [those] factors . It should also consider the degree to which the relevant market compensates for contingency risk, extraordinary skill, or other factors under Serrano III.
Note:
Citation:	D065397
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. Nos. 37-2009-00082322-CU-OE-CTL, 3