Appellants challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), that dismissed appellants suit, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, for DES-related afflictions suffered.
Appellants brought suit claiming that their children and grandchildren suffered disabilities resulting from appellants' ingestion of DES, a drug manufactured by respondents. All but one of the appellants was a resident of the state of New York or New Jersey. The drug ingestion occurred in New York. The New York courts declined to recognize the preconception tort proffered by appellants.The best san diego employment attorneys know all about San Diego Employment laws.
Appellant subsequently brought suit in California. The trial court dismissed the actions of the non-resident appellants for forum non conveniens. On appeal, the court held that the only basis for bringing the action into California was the prospect that the law in California was more hospitable to their claims than the law of New York. Moreover, the court held that the circumstances were not sufficient enough to compel a California court to entertain the non-resident appellants' suit.
The court reasoned that the respondents' activity did not justify the assertion of general or specific jurisdiction over appellants where it was conceded that any DES-related affliction suffered had nothing to do with any of respondent's activities related to California.
The court affirmed the trial court judgment dismissing appellants' suit pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court held that appellants failed to establish that respondents' conduct warranted general jurisdiction where it was conceded that none of appellants' grandmothers, who ingested DES, did so in California. Nor did any of them acquire the product as the result of any of respondent's activities related to California.
Appellant law firm sought review of a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which ruled that respondent insurer was entitled to recover from the law firm a sum that the insurer had paid to settle a legal malpractice action.
An exclusion in a claims-made professional liability policy precluded coverage for a claim by any business enterprise owned or managed by an insured, as defined to include partners and employees. During the term of the policy, the law firm reported a potential legal malpractice claim involving contractual advice it had given. The client later filed a complaint for legal malpractice alleging that the law firm had provided negligent advice. Following a mediation, the legal malpractice action was settled.
The insurer sought reimbursement on the basis that the client's owner and manager was the law firm's managing partner, who owned a majority interest in the client through his revocable trust. He asserted that he was not managing the client when the lawsuit was filed. The court held that the policy language, interpreted according to Civ. Code, §§ 1636, 1639, was clear and unequivocal in precluding coverage. The exclusion applied because the claim was reported when an insured lawyer was managing the client's business, regardless of whether he was managing the client when suit was filed. Moreover, his ownership through his revocable trust made him an owner for purposes of the exclusion.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.