Personal Injury Practice Is Quite Complicated Indeed.

A plaintiffs’ law firm filed a personal injury accident in court against a defendant who allegedly caused a vehicle collision. The defendant driver had $100,000 in liability coverage. The injured plaintiff’s employer’s workers’ compensation carrier filed a complaint in intervention, contending the benefits it paid exceeded $100,000, and asserted a right to reimbursement. When the injured plaintiff and the defendant settled their dispute for $100,000, the defendant’s insurance carrier made the settlement check payable to the injured plaintiff, the plaintiff’s lawyers and the workers’ comp carrier. Plaintiff’s lawyer and the lawyer for the workers’ comp carrier signed a written stipulation stating “that the $100,000.00 settlement money . . . will be deposited into an interest bearing account” and that “[s]ignatures of both parties will be required to withdraw any money.” The settlement check was duly endorsed and deposited in the law firm’s client trust account. Counsel for the workers’ comp carrier filed a motion “for apportionment of settlement proceeds,” asserting a right to the entire $100,000 and never mentioning employer negligence. Later, counsel for the workers’ comp carrier withdrew the motion and filed a notice of lien “against any settlement of [sic] judgment in this action,” filed a request for dismissal of the complaint in intervention, but never notified the injured plaintiff’s attorney of those actions.  About three weeks later, the injured plaintiff’s lawyers dismissed the complaint. Months later, when the plaintiff’s lawyers became aware the complaint in intervention had been dismissed, they sought release of the settlement check, arguing the workers’ comp carrier had forfeited any right to recover. The trial court ruled:  “This case has been dismissed in its entirety. This Court has no further jurisdiction.” The workers’ comp carrier thereafter filed the present complaint against the injured plaintiff’s lawyers for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, conversion and other causes of action “by disbursing the settlement proceeds without the signature and/or consent of [the workers’ comp carrier] and “falsely promising not to distribute the funds.” The injured plaintiff’s lawyers, by now the defendants in the present action, were unsuccessful in the trial court with a motion strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, [the anti-SLAPP statute], and went to the appellate court where they were also unsuccessful:  “Because the withdrawal of funds underlying the causes of action at issue was neither communicative nor related to an issue of public interest, the trial court properly denied a motion to dismiss those causes of action.”  The appellate court did remark, however, that “Nothing in our opinion should be understood to suggest that these causes of action are meritorious.” So, the saga continues. (Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc. (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.; June 27, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 554, [174 Cal.Rptr.3d 91].)