Riverside employment lawyers

In a declaratory relief action between insurance companies involving the effect of certain lease provisions on coverage, the scope of coverage for additional insureds under a business tenant's policy, the relationship of other insurance clauses, and the equitable considerations of competing other insurance clauses, plaintiff appealed a summary judgment entered by the San Francisco County Superior Court, California, in favor of defendant.

An employee of the tenant was working late at night at the tenant's offices after normal business hours. While on a third floor exterior deck, the employee tripped or fell from the deck to a concrete driveway below, resulting in his death. His parents sued the tenant's landlord. Defendant was the landlord's insurer. Plaintiff was the tenant's insurer. In its complaint, plaintiff sought a determination that the landlord was not entitled to defense or indemnity under plaintiff's policy. In a cross-complaint, defendant sought a determination that plaintiff was obligated to defend and indemnify the landlord and a determination that any coverage by defendant was excess to plaintiff's coverage. The instant Riverside employment lawyers concluded that the trial court correctly determined that the landlord was an additional insured under plaintiff's policy and that plaintiff's coverage was not limited to liability directly caused by the tenant. It rejected plaintiff's challenge of the trial court's determination that defendant's policy for the landlord was excess. There was no reason to disregard the express terms of both policies. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to order contribution.

The judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiff developer challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant city. The court held that plaintiff was required to pay a park and recreation fee as a condition of approval of plaintiff's application and minor subdivision map to utilize six contiguous parcels as a single parcel for the development of an apartment complex.

Plaintiff developer owned six contiguous parcels in defendant city. In order to develop an apartment complex, plaintiff filed a planned community application, seeking permission to utilize the parcels as a single parcel, and submitted a proposed minor subdivision map. As a condition of approval of the application and the minor subdivision map, defendant required that plaintiff pay a park and recreation fee. Plaintiff protested the imposition of the fee requirement, but defendant's city council denied relief. Thereafter, plaintiff paid the park and recreation fee and filed a complaint seeking a refund. Defendant filed an answer alleging that the fee was imposed under its authority as a charter city pursuant to its police power and its dealing with a municipal affair. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court affirmed and held that defendant had the authority to enact Mountain View, Cal., City Code art. II, § 28.21 in order to assess a fee under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 11546 and 11535 and Cal. Gov't Code §§ 66477, 66424, and 66426. The court further held that the legislature did not preempt the control of land development.

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of defendant city and the holding that plaintiff developer was required to pay a park and recreation fee as a condition of approval of plaintiff's application and minor subdivision map to utilize his lots for an apartment complex because such a fee was permitted by defendant's city code.

With extensive research and study, Simon passionately creates blogs on divergent topics. His writings are unique and utterly grasping owing to his dedication in researching for distinctive topics.