California Supreme Court’s May calendar includes three Horvitz & Levy cases.
May 22, 2015
The Supreme Court’s large late-May calendar, with 15 arguments over three days (May 26-28) in San Francisco, includes three cases in which Horvitz & Levy LLP represents one of the parties:
Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court: Are the limitations on assignment of third party liability insurance policy benefits recognized in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934 inconsistent with the provisions of Insurance Code section 520? [Horvitz & Levy represents the real party in interest, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.]
City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University: Does a state agency that may have an obligation to make “fair-share” payments for the mitigation of off-site impacts of a proposed project satisfy its duty to mitigate under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) by stating that it has sought funding from the Legislature to pay for such mitigation and that, if the requested funds are not appropriated, it may proceed with the project on the ground that mitigation is infeasible? [Horvitz & Levy represents the petitioner on review, Board of Trustees of the California State University.]
J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company: After an insured has secured a judgment requiring an insurer to provide independent counsel to the insured (see San Diego Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358), can the insurer seek reimbursement of defense fees and costs it considers unreasonable and unnecessary by pursuing a reimbursement action against independent counsel or can the insurer seek reimbursement only from its insured? [Horvitz & Levy represents the petitioner on review, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company.]