Occationally Charles Rumbaugh send the group additional notes between Updates. This is one of those notes.

16 May 1999

From the net (Law School summaries of Cal. Supreme Ct. decisions)--touch on 
  topics of interest that may arise in an ADR context.

  Charles

  ___________________________________________________
  California Teachers Association v. State of California
  No. S067030 (5/10/99)
  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S067030.DOC
   
  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
   
  Holding: The Supreme Court of California held Education Code sec.
  44944(e), unconstitutional on its face because the requirement that
  dismissed or suspended teachers pay half the cost of the
  administrative hearing necessarily and impermissibly deters teachers
  from exercising their due process right to a hearing.
   
  Plaintiff, a permanent teacher, was notified by the district of its
  intent to dismiss him for evident unfitness for service and immoral
  conduct.  Plaintiff timely demanded a hearing before the Commission
  on Professional Competence.  Following a 13-day hearing, the district
  dismissed the plaintiff only on the ground that he was unfit for
  service.  Neither plaintiff nor the district sought judicial review
  of the Commission's decision.  After his dismissal, the plaintiff
  received a bill for $7,747.97, representing half the cost of the
  administrative hearing as specified in sec. 44944(e).  The Court
  found that any legitimate interest the state may have in conserving
  resources or discouraging hearings does not outweigh the teacher's
  strong interest in presenting his or her side of the case in invoking
  the discretion of the adjudicator. AFFIRMED.
  Dissent: Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the burden imposed by
  sec. 44944(e) is constitutionally impermissible, either because the
  statute operates to block access to the hearing or because it fails
  to serve a legitimate purpose.  Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed
  to demonstrate that the statute, viewed as a whole, creates a risk of
  erroneous termination significant to outweigh the state's interest in 
  discouraging meritless hearings.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Insurance Company
  No. S056618 (05/10/99)
  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S056618.DOC
   
  INSURANCE/DAMAGES
   
  Holding: The Supreme Court of California held that PPG Industries, Inc.
  may not shift to Transamerica the payment of punitive damages awarded to
  a third party as a result of the PPG's egregious misconduct.
   
  Miller sued PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) for personal injuries based on
  egregious misconduct.  PPG tendered the defense to its liability
  carrier Transamerica Insurance Company (Transamerica).  Settlement efforts
  failed and a jury trial found for PPG, which was reversed on appeal.
  Miller offered to settle within the policy limits, but Transamerica
  turned down PPG's request to accept the settlement.  The second jury
  trial found for Miller, awarding $5.1 million in compensatory damages
  and $1 million in punitive damages.  PPG's combined insurance
  paid the compensatory damages, but left PPG having to pay $1 million
  in punitive damages.  PPG sued Transamerica for breach of good faith
  and fair dealing.  The Court noted that even though the insurance
  company's alleged negligent failure to settle the lawsuit was a cause in
  fact of the punitive damages, it was not a proximate cause of those
  damages. AFFIRMED.
  Dissent: Believes the majority result favors the insurance companies over
  the insured. The insured does not have a complete remedy for the harms
  caused by the insurer.

© 1999 Charles E. Rumbaugh

Back Top

Back to FASMG's Home Page