In this article 7 sections
Most injury claims never reach an appellate court. But the published decisions that do reach one set the rules everyone else plays by: how settlements are formed, when deadlines start, which disputes go to a judge or jury, and which claims exist at all.
This summer, California’s Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal issued several published opinions that directly affect people who have been hurt. We read each one. Below are five worth knowing about, what each court actually decided, and what it means in practice. One caution up front: each decision turned on its own facts, and none of them guarantees how a different case will come out.
1. A Policy-Limits Demand Can Become a Binding Settlement
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (Wood), Fourth District, Division Two (E087128). Filed July 9, 2026; certified for publication August 4, 2026.
According to the opinion, a driver insured by Farmers rear-ended Kathleen Wood in Hesperia. His bodily injury coverage was $15,000 per person. Wood’s lawyer sent a letter offering to settle for the “total available policy limit of $100,000, or less,” if Farmers accepted in writing by a deadline and sent a copy of the declarations page. The letter added: “If this demand exceeds the policy, then we hereby make a policy limit demand.”
Farmers accepted in time, tendered the $15,000 limit, and sent the declarations page. Afterward, the at-fault driver signed an asset declaration, an asset check turned up other assets, and Wood refused to sign the settlement documents and sued the driver.
The Court of Appeal held that a binding settlement was formed when Farmers accepted. It rejected the argument that Farmers’ acceptance was really a counteroffer, and it explained that “Wood never made her offer contingent upon Archer’s assets declaration.” The court directed the trial court to grant Farmers summary adjudication on its declaratory relief claim.
What it means for you: A policy-limits demand is not a negotiating gesture. If the insurer meets its terms, you may be bound, even if you later learn something you wish you had known. Anything that matters to you, such as a sworn statement about the at-fault driver’s assets or other insurance, generally needs to be a written condition of the offer itself. This is one more reason to think carefully before settling, a topic we covered in should you accept the insurance company’s first settlement offer. If you were hurt in a crash, our car accident page explains how we approach these claims.
2. Robotaxi Injury Claims Sent to Arbitration
Wilkins v. Cruise, LLC, First District, Division One (A173832). Filed and published July 14, 2026.
Gino Wilkins, a Cruise employee, was injured while riding in a Cruise autonomous vehicle as a customer, not while working. He sued Cruise and two General Motors entities. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on, among other things, the Terms of Service tied to his customer account. The trial court denied the motion.
The Court of Appeal reversed. It concluded “the Cruise user account sign-in wrap agreement to its Terms of Service is enforceable,” and that the exception in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2(c), which can allow a court to refuse arbitration when other parties are involved, did not apply. It sent the case back with directions to grant the motions to compel arbitration.
What it means for you: When you tap “sign in” or “agree” in a ride-hailing or other app, you may be agreeing to arbitrate an injury claim instead of taking it to a jury. Whether a particular agreement is enforceable depends on how it was presented and what it says. If you are hurt in a rideshare or driverless vehicle, save your app account information and screenshots of the terms if you can.
3. When a Failed Surgery Starts the Malpractice Clock
Godshall v. Peterson, Fourth District, Division One (D086572). Opinion filed July 20, 2026 and certified for publication August 11, 2026; opinion following rehearing filed September 2, 2026.
Cecilia Godshall had carpal tunnel surgery in 2017. Her symptoms continued, and her surgeon told her the pain was normal and she was healing. In 2021, a revision surgery allegedly revealed that the ligament had not been fully released and had grown back. She sued, and the trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the medical malpractice statute of limitations had run.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5, a malpractice suit must be filed within three years after the date of injury or one year after the patient discovers, or should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first. The Court of Appeal reversed. In its opinion following rehearing, it held that “a question of fact remains concerning when Godshall’s symptoms were sufficiently appreciable to constitute injury and trigger the three-year limitations period,” noting in particular that the surgeon “repeatedly told Godshall her symptoms after the operation were normal and that she was healing fine.”
What it means for you: In a malpractice case, the “date of injury” is not always the date of the procedure. That cuts both ways, though. The deadlines in section 340.5 are short, and the court did not decide when Godshall’s injury occurred; it held only that the question is one of fact for a jury. If a treatment did not go the way it should have, get advice early rather than counting on a later start date.
4. Dismissing Your Own Case to Appeal Can End It
Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc., California Supreme Court (S290188). Decided July 16, 2026. Justice Groban wrote for a unanimous court.
A surgical technologist alleged that a doctor splashed an HIV-positive patient’s blood into his eye during a procedure. After the trial court overruled a demurrer to his negligence claim, sustained it as to other claims with leave to amend, and struck requests for punitive damages and other relief, he and his wife voluntarily dismissed their entire action, with prejudice, “solely for the purpose of expediting an appeal.”
The Supreme Court held: “We hold that when, as here, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their action before the court has reached a final resolution regarding any of the claims pleaded in the complaint, the effect of the dismissal is to terminate the action entirely, thus forfeiting the right to appeal.”
What it means for you: Procedural shortcuts can be fatal. Here, a claim the trial court had allowed to go forward was given up along with the rest. Litigation decisions like this deserve careful thought and a clear understanding of the rules.
5. The Gilead Drug Ruling
Gilead Tenofovir Cases, California Supreme Court (S283862). Decided August 3, 2026.
The Supreme Court held that “drug manufacturers do not owe a duty of care to users of a nondefective drug when making decisions about whether and when to commercialize an allegedly safer alternative drug.” The majority also said that drug makers “remain subject to traditional tort and statutory claims arising from defective products or wrongful conduct.” We explained the decision, and what it did and did not decide, in our post on the Gilead ruling.
What These Decisions Have in Common
Read together, these cases send a consistent message: details decide outcomes. The wording of a demand letter, the terms behind an app’s sign-in button, what a doctor told a patient after surgery, and the procedural route to an appeal each made the difference in a published case this summer.
A few practical habits follow from that:
- Do not send or accept settlement terms casually. Put every condition that matters in writing.
- Keep records of what you agreed to, including app terms, receipts, and account emails.
- Write down what providers tell you about your recovery, and when.
- Get advice before you make a major litigation decision, such as dismissing claims or settling part of a case.
This is also where preparation pays off. Mike Stodolka played professional baseball for nearly a decade after the Kansas City Royals drafted him fourth overall in 2000, and he approaches litigation the way he approached the game: by out-preparing the other side.
Talk to Us About Your Case
Appellate law changes constantly, and a ruling that sounds unrelated to your situation may matter more than you think. If you have been hurt in California and want to understand how these or other recent decisions could affect your claim, contact Reardon Stodolka for a free consultation at 657.522.7122. You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.