Hollander v. XL America Group CA2/1
1. On page 25, the first paragraph of footnote 19 is modified to read as follows: “In their respondents’ brief, defendants do not argue expressly that Gail waived or forfeited her claim of instructional error by failing specifically to request an instruction that the Hollanders were not obligated to negotiate with XL Specialty reasonably and in good faith. Rather, in a section of their respondents’ brief that appears under the main heading ‘Plaintiffs are Estopped by the “Invited Error” Doctrine from Challenging Special Instruction 1’ and the subheading ‘Plaintiffs should be estopped from raising arguments challenging Special Instruction 1 not raised below’ (boldface omitted), defendants maintain that Gail ‘should be barred from challenging Special Instruction 1’ because she ‘never submitted an “unfettered right” instruction . . . to the court.’ Insofar as defendants seek to invoke the forfeiture and/or waiver doctrines, they fail to do so properly.
Comments on Hollander v. XL America Group CA2/1