Two words come to mind in summing up trends in appellate law for the past year: stability and continuity. Neither the California Supreme Court nor the six District Courts of Appeal veered off in a totally surprising direction. Indeed, the Supreme Court issued a relatively modest 55 total majority opinions - this being modest in total number but not necessarily in terms of the breadth of the opinions - for the legal year 2022-2023.
Despite the trend toward stability and continuity, we do have a new Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Hon. Justice Patricia Guerrero. She was nominated by Governor Newsome as Chief Justice and was elected by the people on November 8, 2023. Justice Guerrero replaces the well-regarded Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, who served as a Chief Justice for 12 years. The former Chief Justice spent the last few years navigating the pandemic and the resulting closing and re-opening of our courts and the resulting modifications of California judicial procedure.
Some relatively straightforward trends continued this year, including strictly holding arbitrators to the relevant standards related to disclosure, bias, misconduct, etc. The days when trial courts might "rubber stamp" an arbitration award and fail to seriously consider allegations against the arbitrator and the parties would then expect an appellate court to defer to the trial court's confirmation of the arbitration award are largely gone. (See, e.g,., FCM v. Grove Phan, holding an adverse credibility determination based largely upon the need for a translator constituted "bias" by the arbitrator)
California courts are also working through a host of issues related to COVID-19 and coverage. For example, Endeavor v. HDI Global held that a standard liability policy did not cover losses from the pandemic because there was no "direct" physical loss or damage.
Indeed, this very issue is now pending before the California Supreme Court in Another Planet Entertainment, L.L.C. v. Vigilent Insurance Co., wherein the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal certified the following question:
Can the actual or potential presence of the COVID-19 virus on an insured’s premises constitute ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ for purposes of coverage under a commercial property insurance policy?
For a preview of the next term of the California Supreme Court, please see the court's summary of pending cases.
Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment