Emanuele Secci was driving his motorcycle through an intersection in the City of West Hollywood when a taxi driven by Aram Tonakanian coming from the opposite direction, turned left directly in front of him causing injury.

At the time Tonakanian was driving a green and white taxi marked with a United Independent Taxi Drivers, Inc. insignia.

The jury found Tonakanian to be United’s agent, but not an employee. The court granted United’s motion for judgment, and Secci appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed in the published opinion of Secci v United Independent Taxi Drivers Inc.  The case involves the application of the rules for establishing an independent contractor status

Like other owner-drivers, Tonakanian owned his taxi and set his own hours. Tonakanian’s contract with United stated he was an independent contractor. Drivers paid monthly dues and other fees to cover United’s expenses.

United provided marketing and advertising. Each United taxi had the company’s phone number painted on it. If a customer called the number, a dispatcher would enter the location information into a computer, and the computer would send out a dispatch request. In order to receive dispatch requests, a driver would check into the zone where he or she was located. Drivers were free to accept or reject dispatch requests, and could pick up passengers on the street, so long as they were licensed to accept fares within that city.

Drivers were required to use uniform credit card and dispatch equipment chosen by United. Credit card charges were initially paid to United, which would deduct credit card processing fees, monthly dues, and a small fee for accounting. Taxi rates were set by meter. Drivers were not free to charge flat or discounted rates. United required its drivers to accept vouchers and coupons that drivers could later submit to United for payment. If a driver transferred ownership of a United taxi, the buyer and seller had to notify United and pay a $500 transfer fee.

United provided a training manual to each of its drivers. It required drivers to keep a copy of the manual in the taxi and to complete a training course before taking the city’s licensing test. The training manual provided specific information about the drivers’ appearance, including a dress code, as well as specifics about driving safely, conducting themselves while waiting in taxi lines, and interacting with passengers politely.

United drivers were expected to abide by the company’s rules and regulations, and drivers acknowledged their relationship with United could be terminated for violations of those rules.

A corporation may be held vicariously liable as a principal for the torts of its agents. (Meyer v. Holley (2003) 537 U.S. 280, 285 – 286.) “Whether a person performing work for another is an agent or an independent contractor depends primarily upon whether the one for whom the work is done has the legal right to control the activities of the alleged agent.”

In Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1288 (Yellow Cab), the court held a taxi driver who leased his taxi from the lessor taxi company was an employee, not an independent contractor, for the purpose of workers’ compensation law. (Discussing S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, supra, 48 Cal.3d 341}

Viewed in the light most favorable to Secci, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a jury finding that Tonakanian was United’s agent and United was vicariously liable for Tonakanian’s acts.

At the November 8, 1988, General Election, the voters approved an initiative statute that was designated on the ballot as Proposition 103. The measure made numerous fundamental changes in the regulation of automobile and other forms of insurance in California.

Formerly, the so-called “open competition” system of regulation, rates were set by insurers without prior or subsequent approval by the Insurance Commissioner . Under that system, California had less regulation of insurance than any other state, and in California automobile liability insurance was less regulated than most other forms of insurance.

Proposition 103 instituted a permanent regulatory regime comprising the “prior approval” system, under which the Insurance Commissioner must approve a rate applied for by an insurer before its use, looking to whether the rate in question is excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory or otherwise in violation of’ specified law — considering the investment income of the individual insurer and not considering the degree of competition in the insurance industry generally.

The California Supreme court reviewed and approved Proposition 103 against challenges under the United States and California Constitutions in a series of cases filed by insurance carriers.

In 2009, Mercury Casualty Co. filed an application with the California Insurance Commissioner to increase its homeowners’ insurance rates. Originally, Mercury sought an overall rate increase of either 8.8 percent or 6.9 percent.

In denying the increase Mercury requested, the California Insurance Commissioner made two decisions that are at issue on appeal.

First, the commissioner determined that Mercury’s entire advertising budget had to be excluded from the calculation of the maximum permitted earned premium because “Mercury aims its entire advertising budget at promoting the Mercury Group as whole” rather than seeking to obtain business for a specific insurer and also providing customers with pertinent information about that specific insurer. Second, the commissioner determined that Mercury did not qualify for a variance from the maximum permitted earned premium because Mercury failed to demonstrate the rate decrease that resulted from application of the regulatory formula results in deep financial hardship.

In June 2014, the superior court issued its ruling denying Mercury’s petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in the superior court seeking review of the commissioner’s decision. The judgment was affirmed in the published case of Mercury Casualty Company v Dave Jones, as Insurance Commissioner.

On appeal, Mercury contends the commissioner erred in disallowing all of Mercury’s advertising expenses in the rate calculation. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, Mercury General Corporation’s advertising expenses totaled $26 million, $27 million and $30 million respectively. The Personal Insurance Federation of California intervened in the action on behalf of other industry stakeholders.

Section 2644.10(f) provides that institutional advertising expenses shall not be allowed for ratemaking purposes, Institutional advertising means advertising not aimed at obtaining business for a specific insurer and not providing consumers with information pertinent to the decision whether to buy the insurer’s product.”

The Court of Appeal concluded “Finding no merit in these arguments, or any of the other arguments offered to overturn the judgment, we affirm.”

The Yolo County District Attorney’s Office Workers’ Compensation Fraud Unit recently coordinated a joint unlicensed contractor sting operation in Woodland, California with the Contractors State License Board, the Sutter County District Attorney’s Office, and the Woodland Police Department.

The goal was to hold unlicensed contractors accountable for violations of contractor’s law and workers’ compensation fraud. The team was specifically looking for individuals who were posting false advertisements as well as those who were providing a contractor’s bid without being properly licensed.

During the two-day operation there were a total of 15 arrests made for violations including contracting without a license, posting false advertisements, and not having workers’ compensation insurance. Those arrested were processed and provided information on how to become a licensed contractor.

According to California law all individuals performing work regulated by the Contractor’s State License Board at $500 or greater must have a valid contractor’s license. If they have any employees working for them they must provide their employees with proper workers’ compensation insurance as well.

Homeowners can be held liable for any medical treatment stemming from injuries sustained by the employee of an unlicensed contractor if the injury occurred while working on the homeowner’s property.

District Attorney Jeff Reisig emphasized the incredible liability homeowners face when hiring uninsured employers or unlicensed contractors, saying “If the employee was injured or killed while working on the homeowner’s property, the homeowner could be personally liable for all of the medical bills. Most homeowner’s insurance policies will not cover these types of injuries, resulting in the homeowner owing hundreds of thousands of dollars and potentially losing their home and life savings to pay for these bills. It is critical that homeowners ensure the contractors they hire are licensed by the Contractor’s State License Board and have proper workers’ compensation insurance for their employees. We are committed to combating this type of fraud in our community.”

The Ventura County Star reports that in 2015, law enforcement agencies had six pharmacy burglaries in Ventura County. The following year, these burglaries numbered 64, resulting in an average of more than five burglaries per month and leaving law enforcement officials scrambling for answers. Capt. Garo Kuredjian, of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office, described the 58-burglary increase as a “statistically significant ” change in criminal behavior.

Detective Chip Buttell, of the Oxnard Police Department’s property crimes unit, said most of the burglaries had specific targets, such as opioid-based narcotics, with little variation. The burglars generally have not tried to take everything of value, such as computers or patient information, from a location, officials said.

“It was obvious the criminals were seeking high-priced drugs such as oxycodone,” said Mary Jarvis, a public affairs representative for Kaiser Permanente, whose Oxnard pharmacy was burglarized twice in 2016.

Thieves can potentially make hundreds of dollars from the illicit sale of such opioid drugs on the black market. “Typically, the opioid-based drugs are selling for about 50 cents per milligram,” Kuredjian said. “So it’s $7 to $18 for a 15-milligram pill and $15 to $36 for a 30-milligram pill.”

Indications of the spike began showing up early last year when the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office alerted the public to a string of burglaries in Thousand Oaks and Camarillo. Between January and March, six pharmacies had been burglarized, with the thieves forcing entry into small, independent pharmacies during non-operating hours. They primarily took opioid-based medications, then fled. As the year drew on, the county’s cities – large and small – were plagued by pharmacy break-ins.

In total for 2016, Ventura saw 14 break-ins and Camarillo had 12, while both Oxnard and Thousand Oaks finished the year with 10. Santa Paula reported five and Simi Valley had six pharmacy burglaries. Newbury Park saw two.

Law enforcement officials stressed that the problem is not confined to Ventura County. Regions such as Santa Barbara County, which was unaffected in 2015, reported multiple instances last year, according to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office. Five pharmacy burglaries were reported in 2016, four in Santa Barbara and one in Montecito.

While law enforcement officials have noted the likely financial motive for the burglaries, there are challenges in alleviating the issue. Authorities are unsure precisely why Ventura County and other parts of Southern California have seen a sudden surge in incidents.

Most of the burglaries have occurred at smaller, independent pharmacies, not chain stores such as CVS or Rite Aid where traffic is higher and security is more prevalent.  A Kaiser Permanente representative confirmed that measures had been taken at its Oxnard location to avoid further incidents, although specifics were not shared.

The decreased supply of legitimate drugs has increased the demand from illicit sources, according to authorities. Burglars are only too happy to fill the void left behind by a decline in prescriptions.

Cal/OSHA is reminding employers in California with more than 10 employees to post their 2016 annual summaries of work-related injuries and illnesses. These employers must post the annual summary no later than February 1 of the year following the year covered by the records and keep the posting in place until April 30.

“This important posting requirement increases awareness of health and safety hazards in the workplace and helps employers and employees understand how to reduce risks,” said Cal/OSHA Chief Juliann Sum.

Employers’ requirements to record occupational fatalities, injuries, and illnesses are in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48. Section 14300.32 describes the annual posting requirement. Section 14300.2 lists exempted industries.

To satisfy this requirements, at the end of each calendar year, employers must:

(1) Review the Cal/OSHA Form 300 to verify that the entries are complete and accurate, and correct any deficiencies identified;
(2) Create an annual summary of injuries and illnesses recorded on the Cal/OSHA Form 300 using the Cal/OSHA Form 300A Annual Summary of Work-related Injuries and Illnesses;
(3) Certify the annual summary; and
(4) Post the annual summary.

The employer must review the entries as extensively as necessary to make sure that they are complete and correct. A company executive (as defined) must certify that he or she has examined the Cal/OSHA Form 300 and that he or she reasonably believes, based on his or her knowledge of the process by which the information was recorded, that the annual summary is correct and complete.

The employer must then post a copy of the annual summary in each establishment in a conspicuous place or places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The employer must ensure that the posted annual summary is not altered, defaced or covered by other material.

Instructions and form templates can be downloaded for free on Cal/OSHA’s Record Keeping Overview. The overview includes the summary template, Form 300A, which is the required workplace posting that must be placed in a visible, easily accessible location at each worksite. Current and former employees, including employee representatives, have the right to review the summary in its entirety.