People v. Superior Court (Dominguez)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it is unreasonable to interpret “based on” language to allow insurer to “be free to incorporate other, unlisted factors into this calculation”
• holding that there was “no reason to limit damages merely because death benefits have been paid for a policyholder” because he “still suffered a depleted account value during his lifetime due to [the insurer’s] overcharges of [cost-of-insurance] fees”
• holding that Witt did not “differentiate between tobacco 4 and non-tobacco users, [but] there was no need for the damages model to take this mortality factor 5 into account as this was not a mortality factor listed in the policy”
• explaining that when a district court excluded people who did not share the legal claim at issue from a class definition, it was not creating a fail-safe class
• affirming grant of summary judgment in Vogt’s favor on State Farm’s affirmative defense of limitations
• “Missouri law . . . expressly limits this doctrine to warranty and negligence or strict liability claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).