Lee v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., A124730, concerned a challenge to the trial court's grant of defendant-insurer's motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs' suit against their insurer for refusing coverage under a title policy. In reversing the judgment, the court held that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the causes of action for breach of contract, bad faith, or declaratory relief based on the evidence that APN 22 is located outside the land as legally described in the title policy. Also, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract cause of action based on the statute of limitations. Lastly, the summary judgment on the escrow negligence count cannot be sustained on the alternative ground defendant offers that it did not act as the escrow agent when the plaintiffs purchased their property.
California Hosp. Ass'n v. Maxwell-Jolly, A124098, involved plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate challenging the manner in which the Department of Health Care Services (Department) has been paying hospitals that operate distinct part nursing facilities under California's Medicaid program. In reversing the trial court's denial of the petition, the court held that plaintiff has standing to enforce the Department's duties under state and federal law to the extent such duties are clearly and presently compelled by such laws. The court held that the Department did neither of the requirements under 30(A) with respect to the exclusionary methodology. Also, the Department's decision to freeze Medi-Cal reimbursement rates based solely on state budgetary concerns violated federal law. And lastly, any error by the trial court in considering extra-record evidence was harmless.