Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Damages

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

An award of punitive damages was excessive where it equaled the full value of the only asset that the defendant was shown to own.  It is plaintiff's burden to produce evidence demonstrating the defendant's financial condition--including both assets and liabilities.  Here, plaintiff failed to present evidence of liabilities or show that defendant had more than a minimal annual income.  Proof… Read More

Under the out-of-pocket loss rule for fraud damages, a purchaser cannot recover the purchase price as consequential damages.  However, in applying the out-of-pocket loss rule, the trier of fact is not limited to considering the market value of the product or service on the date it was purchased, but may also consider post-sale evidence that bears on its market value… Read More

Assuming that it is unconstitutional to award statutory penalties for the same wrongful conduct that is also a basis for a punitive damage award, this decision holds that the jury's award of punitive damages for fraud and statutory double damages under the Song-Beverly Act did not offend that rule.  The punitive damages were for misrepresentations that induced purchase of the… Read More

Four federal statutes bar discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability or other protected characteristics by recipients of federal financial assistance; namely Title VI and IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act.  None of these acts expressly grant private rights of action to victims of discrimination that violates those Acts' provisions. … Read More

Under the CLRA (Civ. Code 1792(b), no "action for damages" may be brought against a defendant that offers appropriate correction within 30 days of receiving the plaintiff's notice of violation of the statute.  This decision holds that "action for damages" includes--and the subsection therefore bars--any claim for compensatory damages or for restitution under the CLRA.  The decision also holds that… Read More

The trial court instructed the jury to award plaintiff defendant's profits from the false advertising the jury found only if it found that the defendant acted wilfully.  This instruction was contrary to the Supreme Court's later holding in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. (2020) 140 S.Ct. 1492.  So the jury verdict was reversed and remanded.  However, disgorgement of… Read More

Under Civ. Code 3333.2(c)(2), noneconomic damages in a medical malpractice case are limited to $250,000 unless the defendant provided services that exceeded "the scope of services for which the provider is licensed and which are not within any restriction imposed by the licensing agency or licensed hospital."  This decision holds that section 3333.2 applies to a physician's assistant who has… Read More

Defendant bought the property adjacent to plaintiff's property and improved the purchased property with a drip-irrigated walnut orchard.  A strip of land on defendant's side of the fence between the two properties was actually plaintiff's property.  After defendant completed the orchard improvements, plaintiff sued for trespass on that strip of land and sought an injunction requiring defendant to restore the… Read More

Oakland lacked standing to bring a price-fixing antitrust claim against Oakland Raiders and other NFL teams arising out of the Raiders' move to Las Vegas.  A finding of antitrust standing requires a balancing of the nature of the plaintiff’s alleged injury, the directness of the injury, the speculative measure of the harm, the risk of duplicative recovery, and the complexity… Read More

Plaintiff insured's losses due to COVID-19-related restrictions on its business were not covered by the business interruption insurance policy defendant had issued to it.  To be covered, the business interruption had to result from physical loss of or damage to property at the insured location. Instead, the business interruption resulted from county closure orders that were issued due to the… Read More

Under Civ. Code 3360 and applicable California decisions, a plaintiff who proves that defendant breached a contract is entitled to an award of nominal damages even if the plaintiff is unable to prove actual damages caused by the breach.  (Sweet v. Johnson (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 630, 632.)  Two 9th Circuit opinions stating that breach of contract claims are not actionable… Read More

Under the Knox-Keene Act, health care plans must reimburse out-of-contract hospital for emergency services provided to plan members at the reasonable and customary value for those services (in the absence of a contract setting another rate).  A hospital may sue a health plan in quantum meruit if if thinks the health plan has paid less than the reasonable and customary… Read More

Interpreting a nondisclosure agreement under English law, this decision holds that a clause stating that "this agreement shall terminate on a date 2 years from the date hereof" ended the entire agreement after two years, including the defendant's obligation not to disclose the trade secret information it had learned from plaintiff during the existence of the agreement.  This interpretation was… Read More

Following Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 and Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266,  this decision holds that a plaintiff who has medical insurance but chooses to use out-of-plan doctors for his care is treated for damage purposes as if he were uninsured and may submit the doctors' bills as evidence… Read More

In a case involving a retaliatory firing of a deputy fire marshal, the appellate court affirms the judgment finding the defendant city liable, but reverses the award of $2 million for past noneconomic damages and $1.5 million in future noneconomic damages as excessive given the slight evidence of emotional distress, the fact that plaintiff found other employment, the fact that… Read More

The Federal Housing Finance Agency's structure is unconstitutional in providing that the President can remove the head of that agency only for cause.  However, that fact does not invalidate the acts taken by the FHFA's head or entitle shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to damages unless they can prove that the restriction on the President's power (as opposed… Read More

1 2 3 4