Articles and Blog

A new legal claim, like a piece of real estate, can at first blush have great “curb appeal.”  But sometimes...

General contractors beware:  For all private works contracts you enter into on or after January 1, 2018, you are responsible...

Even large and well-established insurers (like Reliance Insurance Co.) all too frequently slip into insolvency. The California insurance commissioner’s Conservation and Liquidation Office has had its hands full liquidating the assets of insolvent insurers.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to have a fairly good idea of what a formal, written, legally-enforceable agreement looks like. But it is not nearly as clear whether (and when) more informal documents often drafted in the heat of initial negotiations, such as letters of intent, deal point memos, or even exchanges of letters, may amount to legally enforceable agreements.

Several recent decisions signal a willingness by the appellate courts to question, and reject, the California Insurance Guarantee Association’s restrictive interpretations of statutes defining its obligation to pay “covered claims” for insolvent insurers. These decisions mark a trend toward construing those statutes more liberally and more in accord with their remedial purpose.

Leases and other agreements, such as purchase and sale contracts, sometimes require that parties use their “best efforts” to perform certain contractual obligations.

Whatever the nature or merits of your claim — whether you are representing a personal injury plaintiff or a workers compensation claimant, pursuing a professional liability claim, or trying to collect in a complex construction defects action — you could face a grave challenge from something completely outside your control: One or more of the liability insurers you expected to answer for the anticipated judgment could become insolvent.

Can a landlord impose lease terms so restrictive that, according to the Civil Code, the landlord will be deemed to have sacrificed an important legal remedy?