Judge Cowett found that the sharing of tips with shift supervisors violated state law. Starbucks called the ruling "unfair" and "beyond all common sense and reason."

The lawsuit started after a La Jolla barista complained about shift supervisors sharing the employee tips left in the front counter tip jar. After filing suit, a class of nearly 100,000 past and present Starbucks baristas was certified.

DOI has insisted that insurers adhere to the key rate factors in determining the appropriate risk that an insured will be involved in an automobile accident: a person's driving record, the number of years behind the wheel, and the number of miles driven per year.

"It was very clear that they were charging too much," said Douglas Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, the Santa Monica-based advocacy group that successfully championed Proposition 103 in 1988. The voter-approved initiative turned insurance into a highly regulated business, similar to power companies and other public utilities.

DOI is also attacking Allstate for excessive charges for homeowners' insurance, which provide resources to pay premises liability claims.

It is anticipated that the rate ruling will force other insurers to reduce their rates as well.

Not surprisingly then that boating accidents increase at this time of year. Also not surprising is that San Diego is home to two of the most dangerous bodies of water in California for boating accidents (San Diego Harbor and Mission Bay). In a five-year study performed by the California Department of Boating and Waterways, San Diego Harbor and Mission Bay were the third and fourth most dangerous "Coastal Water" area and were both within the top 10 most dangerous bodies of water overall within the State.

In addition, the Department also publishes an annual Boating Safety Report which includes accident data. What we know from these reports is that the vast majority of the accidents involve PWCs (jet-skis, etc.) and open-cockpit motorboats (water-ski boats, etc.). In addition, the majority those involved in these accidents is under 30 years of age. Last the accidents are almost always caused by three factors: excessive speed, operator inattentiveness, and operator inexperience.

If you're going to go out and enjoy San Diego's waters, be sure that you and everyone on your vessel is safe. Look out for other vessels, particularly those operated by young, inexperienced operators and give them wide berth. Avoid areas where these types of operators congregate (De Anza Cove, etc.). Last, make sure that you have insurance (both health and liability) in place to address any type of emergency.

Safe boating.

Unfortunately, our office usually typically has the opportunity to advise clients of their proper insurance needs ONLY after they've been in an accident and it's clear to them they were under-insured. So, please consider this to be a preemptive public safety announcement to all San Diegans.

1. Do Not Purchase Minimum Insurance. The minimum amount of insurance coverage necessary to drive a car in California is bodily injury coverage of $15K/$30K. This means that, in the event that you negligently cause an accident, your insurance carrier will pay all medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering for those you injured up to $15K per person or $30K per accident. If their damages exceed this amount, then you could be personally responsible for the balance. Obviously $15K isn't much money and automobile accident claims can easily exceed this amount, particularly where there is a claim for wrongful death. It is important that you purchase as much bodily injury coverage as you can afford. This is not only important to protect your assets, but, as the next section will make clear, so that you can maximize your under-insured/uninsured motorist coverage.

2. Purchase As Much UM/UIM Insurance Coverage As You Can. Ok, you're responsible. You purchased as much bodily injury coverage as you can. But the other guy, just assume that he is not responsible and is carrying only the minimum coverage--or no coverage at all! That is why you need to maximize your uninsured/under-insured motorist coverage (UM/UIM). UM/UIM allows you to turn to your own insurance to pay for your injuries which exceed the limits of the other driver's insurance policy. However, you can only purchase UM/UIM coverage up to the limits of your bodily injury coverage. So, if your bodily injury coverage is $100K, that is the most UM/UIM coverage you can purchase. UM/UIM is one of the cheapest components of an auto insurance policy. There is no excuse not to have it.

Now comes Progressive's latest dirty trick: offering personal injury settlements in auto accident cases before victims even get a chance to see a doctor.

Here's how the new strategy works:

Ms. Wilson was originally awarded $370 Million dollars by a San Diego Jury. The verdict was later reduced by the trial court to $102 Million and then to $82.6 Million by the Court of Appeal. However, when given the opportunity to reduce this verdict again, the Court of Appeal declined.

The Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. is important for several reasons. First, it was the first time that Ford was held responsible for injuries resulting from a Ford Explorer roll-over auto accident. During the trial, Ms. Buell-Wilson's attorneys effectively proved that Ford was aware that the Explorer was dangerously unstable and prone to oversteer leading to rollovers. Ford also knew that in the event of a roll-over, the Explorer's roof was not strong enough to prevent crush. The cost of preventing rollover roof crushes was minimal, yet Ford refused to make he necessary changes. This is oddly reminiscent of prior Ford safety shortcomings; e.g., the Ford Pinto, use of Firestone ATX tires, etc.

Congratulations to Ms. Buell-Wilson. We hope that this latest ruling provides you with peace...after more than a decade of litigation against Ford's lawyers and unlimited bankroll.

UPDATE: Ms. Buell-Wilson is going to continue to wait for justice. Ford has decided to appeal the latest court ruling.

What most people do not realize is that doctors, unlike almost any other profession, are protected by a damages cap. Since 1975, California law has limited non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) to $250,000. Under this law, NO medical malpractice victim's pain and suffering can be compensated more than this amount.

In 1975, the California legislature enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) installing this cap and also other protections for doctors found to have committed malpractice. So, for 33 years the cap has remained $250,000--despite the fact that $250,000 in 1975 dollars is now worth $1,012,500! From January 1975 to January 2008, the annual rate of inflation has been 4.33% and $4.05 in 2008 dollars will buy the same as $1 in 1975.

Why hasn't MICRA kept pace with inflation? One reason is that the legislature failed, and continues to fail, to provide a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for MICRA even though COLAs are included in a variety of laws, contracts, and almost any other long-term financial arrangement.

Out of this scandal, Southern Nevadans have discovered a problem that should also concern patients in San Diego--how do patients find out about the doctors treating them?

In California, the state Medical Board does not provide any information about past or pending lawsuits for medical malpractice unless a judgment was entered or settlement reached in excess of $30,000. This makes is it difficult for patients to discovery evidence of poor, although perhaps not negligent, performance by their doctors. Due to the scarlet letter this hangs on the chest of a careless doctor, medical malpractice cases, no matter how legitimate or clear-cut, are litigated tooth and nail through trial.

This is a poor way of sharing information with patients about the doctors treating them. It is believed that 90% of all malpractice claims come from the conduct of 10% of doctors. While these may not be exact figures, they do seem logical. Persons who make mistakes or who cut corners tend to repeat these mistakes over and over. For example, in San Diego, a dentist has been successfully sued four times for substandard care.

The contingency fee agreement is the primary manner in which average people can hire attorneys to litigate their interests. Under a contingency fee agreement, the client is able to hire an attorney who will work for them for months or sometimes years at a time without receiving payment for services until the attorney actually obtains a monetary settlement or judgment for the client. The more the attorney recovers for the client, the greater the fee he is entitled to receive. Further, if the attorney does not obtain a monetary recovery, the client does not owe the lawyer anything for the legal services provided.

Without the contingency fee arrangement, clients would be forced to hire attorneys solely by paying for legal services by the hour at rates of anywhere from $200 to $350 per hour, in most cases. Most clients, with legitimate cases, could not afford to hire an attorney under an hourly fee arrangement.

Last, the majority of clients--even those who can afford to pay for legal services at an hourly rate--prefer contingency fee arrangements.

Which makes Oregon Initiative 51 all the more dangerous.

So, it's ironic that The Manhattan Institute's PointofLaw website recently published a story describing the findings of a legal fees study performed by Israeli behavioral economists Eyal Zamir and Ilana Ritov. The study, titled, "Neither Saints nor Devils: A Behavioral Analysis of Attorneys' Contingent Fees" found that--contrary to the beliefs of tort-reformers--the vast majority of litigation clients prefer contingency fee agreements to the traditional billable hour fee agreement.

The study reaches a number of conclusions, but the key conclusion is that clients are risk averse. They prefer a fee arrangement where the attorney shares the risk of litigation with them, even if that means the client ends up paying more in attorneys fees for that service. The attractiveness of the contingency fee agreement is that if the client wins, he will recover monetary damages, and, if he does not win, he does not owe any money in attorneys fees ("heads I win, tails let's call it even).

Think about the utility and value of the contingency fee agreement the next time you hear some tort-reform argument, or, worse yet, a tort-reform initiative seeking to ban the contingency fee agreement.

However, the following recent jury verdict shows that this can happen and demonstrates how it can happen.

Pfc. Jesse Klingler was injured when he was shot at close range with a blank round by an actor hired by a local TV production company. The TV production company was working with the Marines to conduct a simulated interrogation during a military training exercise. Pfc. Klingler was participating as an on-duty marine in the exercise.

A jury awarded Pfc. Klingler $91,000. However, due to litigation strategy, allocation of fault, and the jury's verdict, Pfc. Klingler will not receive any portion of that verdict.

Danielle Coziahr was a third grade teacher at Silver Wing Elementary School in Otay Mesa from 2004-06. She was "probationary", meaning that she had not obtained tenure at her position. Although the Chula Vista School District can generally choose not to renew teaching contracts for any reason, a jury decided that the real reason Ms. Coziahr was let go was because she is a woman and she was pregnant.

The jury awarded Coziahr $1,012,720 with the largest portion being future economic loss due to future lost wages. Coziahr presented evidence that she had been effectively blackballed and could not obtain another teaching position.

Ms. Coziahr provided an interview to local media. The extent of the discrimination that she suffered was inexcusable and Ms. Coziahr rightly feels justified.

1. California minimum wage has been increased $0.50 per hour to $8 per hour for employees.

2. Gift card recipients now have the legal right to receive the balance in cash when that balance is $10 or less.

3. It is now illegal to smoke in a car with a passenger who is under 18 years old. Police cannot pull over drivers solely for smoking with a minor present, but can issue a citation after pulling over a driver for another violation.

4. It is also now illegal to drive in California while using a cell phone without a hands-free device. It is unclear whether speaking on a cell phone in speaker mode is legal. Drivers under 18 may not use wireless telephones while driving, not even with hands-free devices.

5. Cities and counties that approve development in flood prone areas now assume a portion of liability for damages to property due to flooding.

6. Consumers who buy tickets to concerts from oldies bands may have a right to collect damages under civil fraud theories thanks to AB702. If bands market themselves as an oldies band, they must have at least one member of the original band who has the legal right to use the name of the band. Alternatively, bands that label themselves tribute or salute bands can remove themselves from liability.

7. Cities and counties can now no longer enact ordinances prohibiting renting homes or apartments to illegal aliens. In addition, cities and counties can not require landlords to inquire into the legal residence status of renters.

8. Californians get additional privacy protections. Employers can now no longer display more than the last 4 digits of a social security number on an employee's paycheck.

9. An employee may collect temporary disability payments over the course of five years instead of just two, though the maximum number of weeks for which the employee may collect the benefit is still 104.

10. Anyone renewing or applying for a driver's license must sign a declaration acknowledging that they may be charged with murder if anyone is killed as a result of their driving under the influence.

11. Bicyclists must use lights while riding anywhere after dark, including sidewalks, bikeways, or highways. Prior law just required them to do so while on the roadways.

Last Friday, a San Diego Superior Court jury awarded $5.7 million verdict to a bedridden San Diego man who claimed a doctor failed to diagnose his skin cancer. Under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, the award will be reduced to $1.9 million. The 1975 state act requires the court to cut general damages to $250,000 in medical-malpractice cases. It is the largest medical-malpractice award in the state this year. The verdict came after a four week trial.

The jury agreed that the plaintiff, Regis M. Reilly, 53, suffered from life-threatening skin cancer after dermatologist James C. Powers failed to remove cysts on the right shoulder that eventually metastasized into cancer.

Reilly's attorney, Denise Asher, said she was pleased by the size of the award because it represented a sum large enough to offset the trauma caused by the misdiagnosis.

"When you see pictures of the cysts, they are football-sized and deep in the tissue," Asher said. Reilly went through a series of surgeries to remove the cancerous tissue. His wife, Karen Reilly, served as his nurse during the multiple surgeries and radiation treatments.

Reilly is confined to his home under around-the-clock medical care and had to be hospitalized during trial.

Good job, Denise.

A Superior Court jury initially awarded De La Fuente $95 million in his dispute with the city over development of a 312-acre business park near the international border. With legal fees and interest, the potential payment by the city could have reached $150 million.

The developer had sued, alleging the city breached a development agreement he had over the park, and took a series of steps that devalued his land. Soon after the verdict, a judge threw out a portion of the verdict awarding $29.2 million over violations of the development agreement, but let the bulk of the award stand.

The city quickly hired outside lawyers to pursue the appeal. In June 2006, the 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside overturned the rest of the case, concluding there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. The state Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

The city is not quite out of the woods, however. A retrial on the $29 million claim over the reach of the development agreement still looms.

Didn't hear about this last week? Not surprising. The media loves to trumpet big verdicts, but doesn't mention when those big verdicts are reduced (see the Ford roll-over verdict below).