Hon. Thomas P. Nugent, Ret.

Discrimination

• An employment law case in which the plaintiff (employee) claimed wrongful termination arising from a failure to accommodate his physical disability.
• Employment Law case with allegations of retaliation and ethnic discrimination.
• Employment law matter involving allegations of sexual harassment and constructive discharge.  The plaintiff was a bartender and complained that the owner sexually harassed her to such an extent that she determined to terminate her employment.

Coverage

• Issue involved interpretation of insurance contract. Case was pending in Federal Court where a Motion for Summary Judgment was pending.  Impetus to resolve the matter was provided by the failure of the Carrier to Reserve their rights prior to undertaking the representation of their insured which they subsequently withdrew.

Property Damage

• Case involved the spreading of a wildfire that originated on the property of adjacent landowners and destroyed trees.  Issues included the applicability of Section 3346 of the Civil code which permits the doubling or trebling of the damages or parallels Health & Safety Codes which do not, as well as the appropriate measure of damages as between diminution of value of the affected property vs. cost of repair/replacement.  Additional claims for damages involved a loss of use of the affected property as well as an unpled claim for trespass on property assumed to be owned by the trespasser and determined to be owned by the affected property owner.

Medical Malpractice

• A child abuse case including allegations of sexual molestation. Initial demand was in seven-figure range. Settled in six-figure range.
• A Medical Malpractice case arising from allegations of sexual misconduct.  The Board of Medical Quality Assurance had conducted a hearing and reached a decision and the Doctor relinquished his license.
• A Medical Malpractice wrongful death case arising from a laparoscopic procedure of a middle-aged woman in which the bowel was perforated and was undetected by the resident surgeon.  The plaintiffs included the decedent's husband and two adult children.

Landlord/Tenant

• This case involves two parties originally from Serbia who agreed to a combination of contracts with a value well in excess of seven figures.  Neither party was represented and the resulting evidence of their agreement is in conflict.

Elder Abuse

• The complaint alleged Elder Abuse and Negligence causes of action against an assisted living facility and its management company. The motions were in the form of Demurrers and Motions to Strike. The ruling will be filed separately however it was to deny the motions as they pertain to the assisted livings facility and to sustain the motions addressing the elder abuse cause of action as to the Management Company.

General Negligence

• The plaintiff is a wheelchair-bound special needs child who was pushed down a five-step flight of stairs by another special needs student while at school. The school had been warned by the teacher that the classroom was too close to the staircase and the real issue was the extent of the damages which appeared to be minimal.
• The initial cause of action was for the negligent handling of a corpse. The plaintiffs were the survivors of a decedent damaged during or immediately after being delivered to the funeral parlor. A cross-complaint was filed against insurance agents and companies for failure to obtain or cover the damages of the plaintiffs. Issues included duties of insurance agents/brokers, the validity of exclusions claimed by the carriers, and allegations of bad faith arising from a failure to defend and denials of coverage.

PI Auto

• The case arises from a three-vehicle accident.  The plaintiff was negligent in causing a rear-end accident which resulted in a third party (truck) colliding with him as well.  The settlement value was determined by the extent of the injuries realized by the plaintiff which included an eight-figure estimate for the plaintiff's future care.
• Motor Vehicle Accident with head injuries to the Claimant who failed to establish that it resulted in her having the condition of tinnitus.  The evidence ( 5 expert opinions and records) did not establish that condition, however did prove a hearing impairment for which general damages were assessed.