Heimlich v. Shivji, S243029.  (H042641; 12 Cal.App.5th 152; Santa Clara County Superior Court; CV231939.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a motion for costs.  This case presents the following issue:  When a party to an arbitration proceeding makes an offer of compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and obtains a result in the arbitration more favorable to it than that offer, how, when, and from whom does that party request costs as provided under section 998?   Status:  Case is fully briefed

Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyers Construction Co., Inc., S236765.  (9th Cir. No. 14-56120; __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 4434589; Central District of California; No. 2:12-cv-00900-RGK-SP.)  Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The question presented is:  “Whether there is an ‘occurrence’ under an employer’s commercial general liability policy when an injured third party brings claims against the employer for the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the employee who intentionally injured the third party.”  Status:  ARGUED and SUBMITTED FOR DECISION

Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc., S235357.  (B256792; 247 Cal.App.4th 444; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC476544.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action.  This case presents the following issue:  Does the six-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.4, which governs actions based on birth and pre-birth injuries and is not subject to tolling for minority, or the two-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.8, which applies to actions for injury based upon exposure to a toxic substance and is subject to tolling for minority, govern an action alleging pre-birth injuries due to exposure to a toxic substance.   Status:  fully briefed.   The case does not directly involve insurance coverage issues, but may have impact on underwriting decisions.  SUBMITTED FOR DECISION.

Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., S232754. (B247672; 243 Cal.App.4th 1366, mod. 244 Cal.App.4th 643b; Los Angeles County Superior Court; VC059206.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Is evidence of industry custom and practice admissible in a strict products liability action?  Status:  Case fully briefed; pending schedule of oral argument

Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, S244737.  (B272387; 14 Cal.App.5th 1306; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC005158.)Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted in part and denied in part a petition for peremptory writ of mandate.  This case presents the following issue:  When continuous property damage occurs during several periods for which an insured purchased multiple layers of excess insurance, does the rule of “horizontal exhaustion” require the insured to exhaust excess insurance at lower levels for all periods before obtaining coverage from higher level excess insurance in any period?  Status:  Case accepted for review in October, 2017; Opening Brief filed; Answering Brief is due.

Refer to Decided Cases

Heckart v. A-1 Self Storage, Inc., S232322.

McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court, S229762.