This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
Lessing E. Gold of Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp is counsel to the California Alarm Association and a contributing legal columnist. He can be reached at sdm@bnpmedia.com.
Many years ago I reported on a case decided in California. Fireman’s Fund had paid various claims for burglary or fire losses and filed a lawsuit against alarm companies that had contracts with the plaintiff`s insureds, claiming subrogation to losses arising from property damage incidents sustained by insureds.
A recent case was filed by an insurance company as subrogee against an alarm company in Florida under the choice-of-law rules. The insured contracted with the alarm company to provide monitoring of its business facility.
Kermit the frog said, “It’s not easy being green.” While it takes some effort and may not be easy going green for an alarm company, it is certainly an achievable goal.
In California, a man brought an action against his former employer, alleging claims of employment-related discrimination and retaliation. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The employer appealed.
An interesting case involving a limitation of liability provision was recently appealed after a jury trial verdict for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff kept substantial assets in a safe deposit box at a bank.
Two motions for summary judgment were filed in the United States District Court, S.D. New York regarding an electrical fire in the maximum security prison Sing Sing. The motions involved determining whether there were enough fire safety precautions taken by the defendants and if the plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies.
A recent case in the United States Bankruptcy Court discusses a situation where a bankruptcy court refused to allow the party who had been discharged in bankruptcy from discharging the debt.
A case filed in the United States Court for the District of Kansas was notable not for the decision of dismissal rendered because the matter was not timely filed, but because of the court’s consideration of the allegations.