Case Name:	Koch v. Markel Insurance Co., et al.		01/26/2011
Summary:	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS WOODS, J. Blake Koch sued his business liability insurer, Markel Insurance Company (Markel), for refusing to defend or indemnify him in a personal injury lawsuit. Kopstein told Koch that he wanted to sell Koch insurance coverage for Koch's new business and property and represented to Koch that selling garage policies was a specialized area of insurance in which he and Blum were well qualified because of their extensive experience. Had the Blum Defendants advised Koch that he required different or additional coverage, Koch would have purchased it. B. Koch Divides His Business In early 2003, Koch sought to expand his business by purchasing another garage called Adair's Automotive. After Markel denied coverage, Koch asked Kopstein what had gone wrong, and Kopstein replied it appeared Koch had bought the wrong policy.
Note:	The owner of an auto repair shop sufficiently alleged a number of causes of action against his broker and business liability insurer for a coverage gap that left him uncovered against a personal injury suit.
Citation:	B213610
WCC Citation:	WCC 37062011 CA

Case Name:	Kohler vs. Interstate Brands Corp.		11/25/2002
Summary:	RENAE KOHLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. [103 Cal. App. 4th 1098] OPINION ROBIE, J. - In this action for gender-based harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Interstate Brands Corporation (Interstate) on the ground plaintiff Renae Kohler (Kohler) had released Interstate from liability for her FEHA claim by signing a standard workers' compensation compromise and release agreement releasing "all claims and causes of action" against Interstate. Kohler appeals, arguing the broad language of the workers' compensation release was not sufficient to release her civil claims against Interstate. While working at Interstate, she claims she was physically and verbally harassed by fellow Interstate employee Ralph Gallego. 1 Paragraph 3 states "said employee [Kohler] releases and forever discharges said employer [Interstate] .
Note:	Broad settlement language in C&R sufficient to cover previously undisclosed FEHA claim.
Citation:	103 Cal.App.4th 1096
WCC Citation:	WCC 29772002 CA

Case Name:	Konig v. State Bar of California		09/28/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE No. A113742 September 28, 2007 ALAN KONIG, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. Plaintiff is a former attorney on the staff of the State Bar of California (State Bar). His complaint alleges that he became aware of unethical and improper conduct by judges of the State Bar Court (Bar Court). For example, plaintiff alleges that, "[b]eginning in or about May 2003, Plaintiff repeatedly advised Defendants of rulings and orders in several State Bar Court matters that violated Defendant STATE BAR's state and federal constitutional rights, violated witnesses' state and federal constitutional rights, and disregarded binding precedent, including that of the California Supreme Court. "The State Bar argues that because the individual defendants obtained a judgment against plaintiff, the State Bar, as employer of those defendants, can assert the preclusive effect of the judgment.
Note:	[Unpublished] A negative employment action motivated by retaliation for an employee's efforts to report unethical or improper judicial behavior would fall outside the exclusive remedy provisions of workers' compensation because such conduct violates public policy. However, the collateral estoppel effect of the district court's decision precludes any claim that defendants' actions were so motivated.
Citation:	A113742
WCC Citation:	WCC 32632007 CA

Case Name:	Kopitske v. WCAB		08/24/1999
Summary:	Victoria Kopitske (Kopitske) petitions for review of the order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying reconsideration of its ruling that the penalty assessed for unreasonable delay in paying PDA should only be against VRMA supplemented by PDA, and not against PD. [74 Cal. App. 4th 627] We annul the order and direct the WCAB to enter a new order assessing the penalty against PD. Kopitske chose to enter vocational rehabilitation (VR) and received vocational rehabilitation temporary disability (VRTD) payments of $372 per week. Because Kopitske had received VRMA of $11,300 and PDA of $5,800 for a total of $17,100, the 10 percent penalty assessed was $1,710. The WCAB denied reconsideration of the decision and Kopitske petitioned this court for review.
Note:	Failure to pay PDA on request while applicant in rehab results in penalty against PD.
Citation:	74 Cal.App.4th 623, 64 CCC 972
WCC Citation:	WCC 3811999 CA

Case Name:	Kopping v. WCAB		09/11/2006
Summary:	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1996, Kopping injured his spine while working as a traffic officer for the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The parties stipulated that the injury caused permanent disability of 29 percent, and Kopping was awarded $20,357. 50 in permanent disability benefits. Kopping filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board challenging the WCJ's construction of section 4664(b). Thus, the Board returned this case to the WCJ to determine whether Kopping had disproved (or could disprove) overlap, not to allow Kopping to prove medical rehabilitation from the disabling effects of his earlier injury. Kopping petitioned this court for a writ of review of the Board's decision after reconsideration, which we granted to consider the intended meaning of section 4664(b).
Note:	If section 4664(b) is understood as representing the Legislatures common sense recognition that there can be no recovery from a permanent disability, then there is no inconsistency between that statute and section 4664(a).
Citation:	142 Cal. App. 4th 1099
WCC Citation:	WCC 31812006 CA

Case Name:	Koscki v. Herbert		10/12/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAURA C. KOSCKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GERALD HENRY HERBERT et al. , Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Laura C. Koscki was seriously injured when her coworker, Gerald Henry Herbert, negligently operated a tractor-trailer rig, causing it to leave the roadway. Koscki sued Herbert and their employer, Consolidated Freightways Corporation (Consolidated), for her injuries. Herbert requested the trial court take judicial notice of these documents to establish that Koscki had filed a workers' compensation claim. Koscki admitted in her moving papers that her injuries arose out of her employment and that Herbert was her coemployee.
Note:	[Unpublished] It is reasonably probable that the claimant could have have cured the defect in her complaint through amendment.
Citation:	F051098
WCC Citation:	WCC 32662007 CA

Case Name:	Koscki v. Herbert		05/26/2010
Summary:	Plaintiff Laura Koscki appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Gerald Henry Herbert (Herbert) and Consolidated Freightways Corporation (Consolidated). From our nonpublished opinion (Koscki v. Herbert et al. (Oct. 12, 2007, F051098), to be discussed below, it appears that Koscki filed a form complaint alleging that Herbert's negligent operation of the tractor caused her injuries. It also objected to various exhibits submitted by Koscki as lacking in relevance, as inadmissible hearsay, and on the ground that Koscki failed to provide a foundation to establish the documents were as claimed by Koscki. And, as Koscki admitted, attempts were made to reimburse Koscki for these payments, although Koscki found the attempts unsatisfactory. Koscki did not allege her action against Herbert was not precluded by Labor Code section 3601, subdivision (a).
Note:	[Unpublished] Claim barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, because injury occurred within course and scope of employment while employer was actively insured.
Citation:	F057422
WCC Citation:	WCC 36312010 CA

Case Name:	Kosowski v. WCAB		07/25/1985
Summary:	RICHARD KOSOWSKI, Petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, CITY OF SANTA ROSA et al. , Respondents. Kosowski was paid full salary, in lieu of temporary disability, beginning August 4, 1980, pursuant to section 4850. When an orthopedic surgeon, after an examination of Kosowski at the request of City, reported he was permanent and stationary and could not return to work, City instituted disability retirement proceedings. Kosowski was involuntarily retired for disability on April 6, 1981, and payment of his full salary was terminated on April 30, 1981. Kosowski sought reconsideration, which the Board granted for further study of 'an issue of first impression. '
Note:	Employer may credit amounts independently earned by employee during leave against disability liabilities.
Citation:	170 Cal.App.3d 632, 50 CCC 427
WCC Citation:	WCC 24591985 CA

Case Name:	Koszdin v. SCIF		07/06/2010
Summary:	Ct. No. BC392986) KENTON KOSZDIN et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. [Kenton Koszdin et al. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company (No. BC393290); Gilbert Lipman v. Explorer Insurance Company (No. BC393291); Gilbert Lipman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (No. BC393292); Kenton Koszdin et al. v. Marriot Claims Services (No. BC393295); Gilbert Lipman v. Stater Bros. Markets (No. BC393296). Kazandjieff & Traney and Nick Kazandjieff; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich; Novak & Ben-Cohen and Pejman Ben-Cohen for Plaintiffs and Appellants Kenton Koszdin and Gilbert Lipman. In this case, the attorney fee awards ordered by the WCAB expressly directed the payment of attorney fees to either Koszdin or Lipman. [3] In the complaints where both Koszdin and Lipman were named as plaintiffs, relief was sought on behalf of both proposed sub-classes.
Note:	A trial court did not have jurisdiction over a suit seeking unpaid interest on Workers' Compensation Appeals Board attorney fee awards because the board did not specify that the awards should include interest, an appellate court ruled.
Citation:	B214481
WCC Citation:	WCC 36472010 CA

Case Name:	Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co.		01/19/1979
Summary:	THOMAS L. KOWALSKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Bird, C. J. , expressing the unanimous view of the court. )Plaintiff, Thomas L. Kowalski, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant, Shell Oil Company, in an action for personal injuries. This court must decide whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that plaintiff was not Shell Oil Company's special employee. On February 1, 1974, Kowalski filed a complaint against Shell and other defendants seeking damages for personal injuries. Shell could also request Peterson to remove an employee whose work Shell found unsatisfactory.
Note:	Since there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Kowalski was not Shell's special employee, the trial court erred in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Therefore, that judgment is reversed and the trial court is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff.
Citation:	23 Cal.3d 168
WCC Citation:	WCC 39361979 CA