September 19, 2016
The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, September 14, 2016. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
United Educators of San Francisco AFT/CFT v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, S235903 – Review Granted – September 14, 2016
This case presents questions concerning the entitlement of substitute teachers and other on-call paraprofessional employees to unemployment insurance benefits when they are not called to work during a summer school term or session.
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division One, held in a published decision, United Educators of San Francisco AFT/CFT v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1235, that public school employees with reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following fall term are not eligible to receive unemployment insurance during the intervening summer term.
Certified Question of State Law Accepted
Migdal Insurance Company v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, S236177- Request to Answer State Law Question Granted – September 14, 2016
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asked the Supreme Court to decide questions of California law. The court ordered briefing deferred pending a determination whether to restate the questions presented.
The issues as stated by the Second Circuit are: “1. Where the insurance policies of two insurance companies (identified in this question as A and B) cover the same risk, the policy of company A is primary and contains no ‘other insurance’ clause [footnote omitted], and the policy of company B, which is also primary, contains an ‘other insurance’ clause stating, ‘This insurance is excess over: . . . Any of the other insurance or your self-insurance plan that covers a loss on the same basis,’ [footnote omitted] is company A entitled under California law to equitable contribution from company B? [Footnotes omitted.] [¶] 2. Under the circumstances described above and where the amount Company A paid to settle a case exceeds the policy limit of Company B’s policy, is a clause in the insurance policy of Company B stating, ‘All payments made under any local policy issued to you by us or any other insurance company will reduce the Limits of Insurance of this policy’ enforceable under California law?”
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)