Legal Opinion
Meleski v. Estate
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided November 29, 2018No. C080023PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBlease, Acting P.J.
*554*620This case involves a procedure by which an insurance company, as the entity controlling the litigation and incurring the risk of loss, is a de facto party under Probate Code sections 550 through 555 in "an action to establish [a] decedent's liability for which the decedent was protected by insurance" ( Prob. Code, § 550 ),1 and thus also is a party under Code of Civil Procedure 2 section 998 that must pay specified costs after rejecting a reasonable settlement offer.
Amanda Meleski was injured when Albert Hotlen ran a red light and collided with her vehicle. Unfortunately, Hotlen was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1998
- Folsom v. Butte County Assn. of GovernmentsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- California School Employees Ass'n. v. Governing Board of the Marine Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Scott Co. of California v. Blount, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Anthony v. LiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- Anthony v. LiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
- K. v. Sonoma CountyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- Parrisse Henderson v. Lazar Freight, LLC, et al.District Court, E.D. California · 2026
- Tajran v. Estate of Irene McDonaldDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.