Since 1988, insurance companies have reveled in the idea that California case law has effectively precluded plaintiffs from bringing claims against them for unfair business practices. Insurance companies have relied on the California Supreme Court holding in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies, 46 Cal.3d 287 (1988), which held that the Unfair Insurance Practice Act ("UIPA"), Insurance Code §§ 790 et al., did not create a private cause of action against insurers for the unfair claims settlement practices set forth in Ins. Code § 790.03(h). Moradi-Shalal, 46 Cal. 3d at 304-05. Following Moradi-Shalal, several courts also held that plaintiffs could not bring claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Cal. Bus. Prof. §17200, et seq.), for practices that were deemed unfair under the UIPA. See, e.g., Maler v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. App. 3d 1592, 1598.
[Read More]

Feds Agreement to Scale Back Proposed Regulations of For-Profit Education Programs Means another Loss for Consumers
By BRANDON BROUILLETTE, ESQ.

On June 2, 2011, the federal government released the latest version of proposed legislation regulating for-profit education institutions. Not coincidentally, the same day corporations behind for-profit institutions saw their stock prices rise across the board, including Apollo Group, Inc, the corporation behind for-profit leader the University of Phoenix, which saw its stock price jump 11%. Thus, according to the market, the latest proposed legislation signals a clear victory for the for-profit industry and its army of lobbyists who were able to take the teeth out of the bill’s regulations. Of course, in a political climate that has seen universal healthcare and financial regulation legislation succumb to similar fate, the scaling back of the legislation’s measures certainly comes as no surprise.
[Read More]

Tort reform takes on different meanings and connotations depending on who you’re talking to, but in the new HBO documentary, “Hot Coffee,” tort reform is described as an industry-led campaign to limit a plaintiff’s right to access the courts and potential recovery in a civil lawsuit. The documentary chronicles the stories of four individuals who have been adversely affected by the tort reform movement and conveys a compelling pro-plaintiff position. “Hot Coffee” opens with the famous McDonald’s product liability suit and segues to a family suffering the negative impact of caps on damages. It reveals the power and influence of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce particularly in the business of financing judicial campaigns and ends with another high profile story involving Halliburton and mandatory arbitration. I will discuss the well known McDonalds and Halliburton cases.
[Read More]