As background, in 2002 Nevada was dealing with a significant medical malpractice insurance crisis in which doctors were leaving the state due to ever-increasing malpractice premiums. In an effort to deter frivolous medical malpractice litigation and stabilize insurance premiums, the Nevada legislature enacted NRS 41A.071. This statute requires a trial court to dismiss a medical Read More…
Rewriting The Rules On Introduction Of Collateral Source Payments In Cases Involving Medical Malpractice
Nevada allows defendants to introduce evidence of collateral source payments (i.e. payments received from sources other than the defendant for the injuries/damages alleged against the defendant) in cases involving medical malpractice. However, a recent Nevada Supreme Court opinion in McCrosky v. Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center addressed the unique situation of federal collateral source payments. Read More…
California Supreme Court Addresses Pitfalls Of Dual Agency Relationships In Real Estate Transactions
It is not uncommon for parties on opposite sides of a real estate transaction to consent to representation by a single real estate broker for purposes of reducing commissions or expediting a transaction. California law allows for such a “dual agency” relationship if the buyer and seller consent to such a relationship after required disclosures. Read More…
Nevada Supreme Court Addresses Doctor-Patient And Therapist-Client Privileges Asserted By Defense
NRS 49.225 and NRS 49.247 protect communications between a patient and his or her doctor and between clients and their marriage and family therapist as confidential. However, a patient who voluntary puts his physical or mental condition in issue in a lawsuit waives the protection of the doctor-patient privilege for communications with his doctor about Read More…
Appellate Decision Restricts Use Of MSJs For Standing Issues In Construction Defect Cases
In Stofer v. Shapell Industries, Inc., the California First District Court of Appeal recently held that when the determination of standing in the construction defect context turns on disputed facts or requires credibility determinations, the jury must make factual findings as to whom the cause of action accrued before the court can decide whether the Read More…
Appellate Decision Limits Reach Of Equitable Indemnity Claims Against Design Professionals
In the recent case of State Ready Mix, Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, the California Second District Court of Appeal declined to extend liability under a concrete supplier’s equitable indemnity claim to a civil engineer hired by the general contractor. The case arose from a general contractor’s breach of contract action against a concrete supplier Read More…
Appellate Decision Expands Design Professional Liability
In Beacon Residential Community Association. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP, the California Supreme Court held that a principal architect – that is an architect that is not subordinate to other design professionals – can be held liable to a plaintiff for negligence without privity of contract. The principal architect can be held liable even Read More…
