Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Jou v. Medical Insurance Exhcange of California

5/30/2003

d fair dealing are made, not in connection with his second amended complaint, but in protest of the court's denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment, which he brought upon his first amended complaint. This is curious, because the final judgment Jou appeals was predicated upon the court's dismissal of his second amended complaint, which, in turn, was ostensibly filed to cure the deficient factual allegations that led the court to dismiss the first amended complaint. Indeed, as the court stated at hearing, Jou's counsel conceded at hearing that the factual allegations of the first amended complaint were insufficient to state a cause of action. Hence, how the first amended complaint could nonetheless support summary judgment is a perfect ponder. Our independent review and comparison of Jou's first and second amended complaints confirm that the former was merely an inchoate form of the latter, and we have here concluded that the latter still could not state a cognizable claim. Besides, the essential argument in Jou's cross-motion for summary judgment was nothing more than a chronological catalogue of the pertinent events, which culminated in MIEC's refusal to renew Jou's insurance coverage and its alleged dissemination of that decision. The merely temporal was here, not substantively conclusive. As we have stated, "in weighing the allegations of the complaint as against a motion to dismiss, the court is not required to accept conclusory allegations on the legal effect of the events alleged." Marsland, 5 Haw. App. at 474, 701 P.2d at 186 (citation omitted). If Jou's allegations, exhibits and merely conclusory arguments were insufficient to state a cause of action, they were a fortiori insufficient to support a summary judgment. We believe that Jou's arguments on appeal with respect to the court's denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment are without merit.


IV. Conclusion.


The court's July 27, 2001 final judgment is affirmed.






Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 

Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE