Appellant administrator sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted summary judgment to respondents’, a doctor, an insurer, and an insurance review company, in an action by appellant for breach of contract and wrongful death.
Nakase Law Firm provides more information on California Statute of Limitations Negligence
Overview
The decedent was diagnosed with major depression, drug dependency, and anorexia. His doctor determined that he needed three to four weeks of in-patient care, but the insurer declined coverage after 10 days. The decedent was discharged and committed suicide. The trial court held that respondents were immune from liability pursuant to a public policy exception under Cal. Civ. Code § 1714. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that respondent doctor and insurer were not entitled to summary judgment because neither was mentioned in respondents’ separate statement of undisputed facts pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. § 437c(b). Moreover, respondent insurance review company was not entitled to summary judgment because its conduct may have been a substantial factor in the cause of decedent’s death, Because no rule of law granted it immunity; it could be held jointly responsible. The court also held that no public policy exception granted respondent insurance review company immunity under § 1714. Respondent insurance review company was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis that respondent doctor failed to request a review decedent’s policy after benefits were denied.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to appellees in appellant administrator’s action. Respondents doctor and insurer were not entitled to summary judgment because they failed to heed the rules of procedure. Respondent insurance review company was not entitled to summary judgement because its conduct may have been a material factor in the insured’s death and immunity did not apply.