Temecula Employment Lawyer Provides Business Law Update
› U.S. Department of Labor to Refer Complaining Employees to Plaintiff's Attorneys - The Wage & Hour Division ("WHD") of the U.S. Department of Labor enforces the minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). It gets employee complaints about alleged violations of these acts, and attempts to resolve them through conciliation, settlement or litigation.
Despite the fact that the WHD has an improved enforcement budget and recently hired 350 new investigators, it cannot handle all of the employee complaints it gets. In the light of this, the WHD announced a new program called "Bridge to Justice." Pursuant to the program, whenever the WHD cannot mange an employee's complaint for violation of the FLSA or FMLA, the employee will be provided with a toll-free phone number to assist the employee in getting an attorney to sue the employer. As a result, expect an escalation in employee lawsuits under the FLSA or FMLA against companies.
›Homeowner's Case for Breach of Title Insurance Policy Allowed to Proceed - It is well-settled in California that if an insurer declines to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured by refusing, without proper cause, to compensate its insured for a loss covered by the policy, such behavior may permit the insured to sue the insurer for compensation. This type of claim is referred to as one for "bad faith." Not long ago, another bad faith case in California carries on the State's tradition of commonly favoring the insured in arguments with their insurer over the specific scope of coverage.
Lee v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., 188 Cal. App. 4th 583 (2010), concerns a dispute regarding precisely what property was covered by a policy of title insurance. The plaintiffs in the case, years ago, purchased a plot of land made up of two assessor parcels (or so they assumed at the time). The seller's agent named the two parcels as for sale, and the purchase contract identified both parcels.
As part of the process, plaintiffs endeavored to attain title insurance for both parcels. The preliminary report issued by the title insurance company (the defendant in the suit) included both parcels in the property's address and, among other items, had a parcel map with arrows pointing to both parcels. The report (and the policy issued) also, however, had a "legal description" of the property - i.e., a highly technical identification of the land, indecipherable to all but professional surveyors. For example, this legal description plotted out measurements of "South 13? 15? West, along the West line of said Survey No. 185, a distance of 20.03 chains; thence East 11.70 chains, more or less…." Significantly, this legal description (which was identical to that of the grant deed) listed only one of the two parcels.
In due course, the plaintiffs discovered that they in fact only purchased one of the two parcels. The seller lacked legal right to sell them the other. Accordingly, the plaintiffs made a complaint to the defendant in their title insurance policy which, as they thought, covered the two parcels. The defendant, however, denied the claim, pointing to the "legal definition" in the policy. The defendant argued this legal definition limited the policy's coverage to one of the parcels which, it turned out, was the one the plaintiffs actually owned. The lower court granted judgment in favor of the defendant.
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, however, siding with the buyers. The court reaffirmed the rule in California that an insurance policy's coverage must be construed with regard to the rational expectations of the insured. Moreover, any ambiguity in the insurance policy must be interpreted in support of the insured. Here, the preliminary report of the insurance policy stated that both plots would be covered. While the legal description limited coverage to only one parcel, this description was efficiently ambiguous, as plaintiffs would have no way of themselves determining whether the technical description in fact pertained to both parcels. Construing the ambiguity in favor of the insureds, it was inappropriate to rule that there was no coverage for both parcels.
This article is intended to convey accurate general information concerning the subject matter covered, but should not be construed as legal advice, which would be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the client.
Despite the fact that the WHD has an improved enforcement budget and recently hired 350 new investigators, it cannot handle all of the employee complaints it gets. In the light of this, the WHD announced a new program called "Bridge to Justice." Pursuant to the program, whenever the WHD cannot mange an employee's complaint for violation of the FLSA or FMLA, the employee will be provided with a toll-free phone number to assist the employee in getting an attorney to sue the employer. As a result, expect an escalation in employee lawsuits under the FLSA or FMLA against companies.
›Homeowner's Case for Breach of Title Insurance Policy Allowed to Proceed - It is well-settled in California that if an insurer declines to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured by refusing, without proper cause, to compensate its insured for a loss covered by the policy, such behavior may permit the insured to sue the insurer for compensation. This type of claim is referred to as one for "bad faith." Not long ago, another bad faith case in California carries on the State's tradition of commonly favoring the insured in arguments with their insurer over the specific scope of coverage.
Lee v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., 188 Cal. App. 4th 583 (2010), concerns a dispute regarding precisely what property was covered by a policy of title insurance. The plaintiffs in the case, years ago, purchased a plot of land made up of two assessor parcels (or so they assumed at the time). The seller's agent named the two parcels as for sale, and the purchase contract identified both parcels.
As part of the process, plaintiffs endeavored to attain title insurance for both parcels. The preliminary report issued by the title insurance company (the defendant in the suit) included both parcels in the property's address and, among other items, had a parcel map with arrows pointing to both parcels. The report (and the policy issued) also, however, had a "legal description" of the property - i.e., a highly technical identification of the land, indecipherable to all but professional surveyors. For example, this legal description plotted out measurements of "South 13? 15? West, along the West line of said Survey No. 185, a distance of 20.03 chains; thence East 11.70 chains, more or less…." Significantly, this legal description (which was identical to that of the grant deed) listed only one of the two parcels.
In due course, the plaintiffs discovered that they in fact only purchased one of the two parcels. The seller lacked legal right to sell them the other. Accordingly, the plaintiffs made a complaint to the defendant in their title insurance policy which, as they thought, covered the two parcels. The defendant, however, denied the claim, pointing to the "legal definition" in the policy. The defendant argued this legal definition limited the policy's coverage to one of the parcels which, it turned out, was the one the plaintiffs actually owned. The lower court granted judgment in favor of the defendant.
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, however, siding with the buyers. The court reaffirmed the rule in California that an insurance policy's coverage must be construed with regard to the rational expectations of the insured. Moreover, any ambiguity in the insurance policy must be interpreted in support of the insured. Here, the preliminary report of the insurance policy stated that both plots would be covered. While the legal description limited coverage to only one parcel, this description was efficiently ambiguous, as plaintiffs would have no way of themselves determining whether the technical description in fact pertained to both parcels. Construing the ambiguity in favor of the insureds, it was inappropriate to rule that there was no coverage for both parcels.
This article is intended to convey accurate general information concerning the subject matter covered, but should not be construed as legal advice, which would be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the client.