Case Name:	Harris v. McCutchen		03/29/2013
Summary:	HARRIS v. McCUTCHEN HARTWELL HARRIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BINGHAM McCUTCHEN et al. , Defendants and Appellants. Bingham McCutchen, Debra L. Fischer, Robert A. Brundage and Jessica S. Boar for Defendants and Appellants. INTRODUCTION Defendants, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Seth Gerber and Jonathan Loeb, appeal from an order denying their petition to compel plaintiff, Hartwell Harris, to arbitrate her California employment discrimination and wrongful termination claims. The issue at hand is whether Harris has properly resorted to the superior court in the first place. *fn1 Plaintiff Hartwell Harris is awarded her costs on appeal.
Note:	A former Bingham McCutchen attorney could not be compelled to arbitrate her disability discrimination claims against the law firm.
Citation:	B240522
WCC Citation:	WCC 39972013 CA

Case Name:	Harris v. Superior Court of LA County		12/29/2011
Summary:	HARRIS v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FRANCES HARRIS et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Real Parties in Interest. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; FRANCES HARRIS et al. , Real Parties in Interest. Recognizing that the law was unsettled, the court suggested the parties seek interlocutory review by the Court of Appeal. (f)(1); North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 1145, 1160; Hood v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 319, 322-323. )Defendants contend that if the Court of Appeal erred, this court should decertify the class in its entirety.
Note:	The California Supreme Court on Thursday vacated a lower court ruling finding claims adjusters are not exempt from the state's overtime laws, without answering whether the adjuster should be exempt.
Citation:	S156555
WCC Citation:	WCC 38402011 CA

Case Name:	Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County		08/16/2007
Summary:	B195121 c/w B195370, B195370 c/w B195121 August 16, 2007 FRANCES HARRIS ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL. , PETITIONERS, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, RESPONDENT; FRANCES HARRIS ET AL. , REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 690, 701-702; see also Bell II, supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at p. 2002) 299 F. 3d 1120, 1125, quoting Bratt v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. (Bratt v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 912 F. 2d at p. 1070; see also Martin v. Cooper Elec.
Note:	The plaintiffs are not exempt from the overtime compensation requirements imposed by California law.
Citation:	B195121
WCC Citation:	WCC 36302007 CA

Case Name:	Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County		07/23/2012
Summary:	HARRIS v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY FRANCES HARRIS et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Real Parties in Interest. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. , Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; FRANCES HARRIS et al. , Real Parties in Interest. These writ proceedings are before us on remand from the Supreme Court following the court's decision in Harris v. Superior Court (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 170 (Harris). Recognizing that the law was unsettled, the court suggested the parties seek interlocutory review by the Court of Appeal. The court reversed our judgment and remanded to this court to reconsider the matter in light of "the appropriate legal standard set out herein. "
Note:	Claims adjusters are not exempt from state overtime laws.
Citation:	B195121
WCC Citation:	WCC 39162012 CA

Case Name:	Harsco Corp. v. Kiewit Pacific Co.		05/27/2008
Summary:	Savage; Chapman, Clucksman & Dean, Arthur J. Chapman and Dominic J. Fote for Cross-Defendant and Respondent Kiewit Pacific Company. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Kiewit Pacific Corporation (Kiewit) was hired as the general contractor to build 60-foot sewage tanks. Ninety-nine per cent of the shoring frames on tank 19 were rented by Quality from Harsco Corporation (Harsco). Third, Harsco had the authority to rent the shoring pursuant to a June 15, 1992 contract with Kiewit. On January 6, 2005, Harsco filed its reply to Mr. Villegas's summary judgment opposition which stated: "Defendants Harsco Corporation, Patent Construction Systems, A Division of Harsco, SGB Construction Services, Inc. , and SGB, Inc. .
Note:	Employer's failure to raise the issue of damages until after it had propounded discovery devices, litigated a summary judgment motion, and participated in a trial waived, forfeited, and estopped it from asserting it was not subject to a potential damage award in this case.
Citation:	B194481
WCC Citation:	WCC 33732008 CA

Case Name:	Hart v. WCAB		08/08/2012
Summary:	Applicant Stephen Hart injured his right shoulder in the course of employment, which later led to an overcompensation injury to his left shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. We shall remand the matter to the WCAB to reconsider applicant's temporary total disability claim. A more comprehensive summary is unnecessary, considering our conclusion that the WCJ and WCAB did not weigh the evidence relating to applicant's cervical problems. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the WCJ's decision based on the reasons stated in the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, which the WCAB incorporated by reference with some minor, non-substantive corrections.
Note:	An injured retail worker may be entitled to further temporary total disability benefits arising from a 13-year old injury.
Citation:	C069347
WCC Citation:	WCC 39192012 CA

Case Name:	Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. WCAB		11/01/1978
Summary:	HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and NANCY PHILLIPS, Respondents. Accordingly, we reverse a determination of the WCAB that petitioner Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company's petition for reconsideration was untimely and remand the matter to the WCAB for consideration on the merits. It designates as attorney of record for Hartford 'Bernardo A. Hernandez, ESQ' at '3435 Wilshire Blvd L. A. , CA 90010. 'The findings and award were not received in the Wilshire Boulevard office of Hartford until August 29, 1977. It did not serve either Hartford or its attorney of record at their respective 'addresses of record. '
Note:	Service must be made to address on record with WCAB; statutory period begins when order received by attorney on record.
Citation:	86 Cal.App.3d 1, 43 CCC 1193
WCC Citation:	WCC 27821978 CA

Case Name:	Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.		09/18/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. By a letter to Hartford dated January 20, 2006, PG&E acknowledged receipt of Hartford's claim and informed Hartford that Nash had settled her lawsuit with PG&E. Once Nash settled her action and agreed to release her rights against PG&E, Hartford had no rights against PG&E. Consequently, although PG&E might have contractual or equitable indemnity rights against Nash, PG&E could not escape liability for Hartford's claim for reimbursement. As a matter of law, PG&E had no duty to notify and/or obtain the consent of plaintiff Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company ('Hartford') to the pending settlement. "
Note:	[Unpublished] Appellant's right to pursue a direct action against PG&E was not precluded by the settlement and dismissal of injured employee's lawsuit against PG&E.
Citation:	A119344
WCC Citation:	WCC 34262008 CA

Case Name:	Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. vs. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.		10/21/2004
Summary:	Valley Metal fulfilled that obligation by purchasing a CGL policy from Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (Hartford), effective through April 27, 2000. Hawley addressed, but failed to resolve, the issue of whether Hartford would provide PCS with indemnity. Per the contract, Hartford policy is primary and indemnification is owed for all except sole negligence or willful misconduct of [PCS]. "Hawley Insurance Company is facing a large potential exposure, and they should participate and contribute toward a resolution of this claim. "Hawley, seeking declaratory relief, contribution, and indemnity based on the amounts Hartford had paid to defend and settle the lawsuit by Cortez and Fremont.
Note:	Where a general contractor is not liable to a subcontractor under an indemnity provision, so the general contractor's own insurer is not liable to the subcontractor's insurer for an employment injury..
Citation:	123 Cal. App. 4th 278
WCC Citation:	WCC 30612004 CA

Case Name:	Hartsuiker v. WCAB		01/11/1993
Summary:	RUSSELL HARTSUIKER, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, HARTSUIKER & CO. et al. , Respondents. We now conclude that the WCAB does not have authority to reserve jurisdiction to make such an award more than five years after the date of injury. On December 15, 1991, the WCAB issued its opinion and order denying a petition for reconsideration. The WCAB continued: 'Ruffin also contends that jurisdiction should be reserved in his case to award further temporary disability indemnity. Also, as observed by the Court of Appeal, the WCAB did not reserve jurisdiction to award Nickelsberg further temporary total disability.
Note:	No WCAB continuing jurisdiction to award disability for hospitalization more than 5 years after injury.
Citation:	12 Cal.App.4th 209, 58 CCC 19
WCC Citation:	WCC 26671993 CA