Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v. Canadian Univ. Ins. Co., No. S244737 (Cal. Apr. 6, 2020)
So I have this pro bono case that was originally filed in 2002—I was still a 1L—which has been reversed on appeal four times. Once everyone doesn’t need to work out of their basement anymore, hopefully it will finally get tried sometime later this year.
I thought that took the cake, at least for civil cases. (Capital cases and their subsequent habeases are obviously a different animal.) But in this Supreme Court opinion, on a somewhat obscure issue on what exhaustion of primary coverage is required to trigger the obligations of excess insurance carriers, the Court notes that it “previously recounted the basic facts facts underlying this dispute.” It then cites an opinion from 1993!
It’s an insurance dispute. Essentially, a fight over the meaning of words in a contract. And it’s been going on for at 27 years since the first time it was before the Supreme Court! And the remand anticipates “further proceedings!”
Court of appeal reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment