Mackie v. Hanover Insurance Co. CA1/3

── Mackie v. Hanover Insurance Co. CA1/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/15/26 Mackie v. Hanover Insurance Co. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LAURA MACKIE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A164404 v. (Contra Costa County HANOVER INSURANCE Super. Ct. No. MSC 18-02264) COMPANY, INC., Intervenor and Respondent. Laura Mackie and Michael Hague (Plaintiffs) filed the underlying negligence action against Brian Goldman, MD, A Medical Corporation (Goldman Inc.), seeking damages for injuries they sustained when Brian Goldman’s wife, Kimberly, struck them with her rental car before taking her own life.1 Respondent Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover) intervened to defend its insured and obtained summary judgment on behalf of Goldman Inc. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Brian Goldman is a licensed psychiatrist. In 2014, he began providing mental health services through his corporation, Goldman Inc. Brian’s wife To avoid confusion, we often refer to the Goldmans by their given 1 names. No disrespect is intended. 1 Kimberly did administrative work for the company, using such titles as practice manager, assistant secretary, and office administrator. Kimberly mostly worked from home, and occasionally came to the office for meetings. She was not compensated via Goldman Inc.’s payroll system, but instead took “office draws” from the corporate account. In July 2016, Laura Mackie was hired by Kimberly to work for Goldman Inc. as an independent contractor. Mackie was retained as a risk management consultant, to assist with a data breach that occurred when two laptops containing confidential client data were stolen from Brian’s car. Mackie also agreed to provide general administrative support. Before Mackie went to work at Goldman Inc., she had known the Goldmans for several years. Mackie first met Brian in 1997 when he treated her son. A few years later, she worked for Brian as a paralegal, and by 2006 the two were close personal friends. Mackie also became friends with Kimberly, and in around 2014 she was appointed as a guardian for the Goldmans’ children in the event that both parents were to die. Mackie’s life partner, Michael Hague, knew the Goldmans but had no relationship with Goldman Inc., either as an employee or client. In late July 2016, Kimberly asked Mackie to take over management of Goldman Inc. because she no longer wanted to be involved with the business. The Goldmans were having marital problems, so Kimberly went to Texas, where she had family and wanted to live.2 Thereafter, in early September, 2 Our background summary is based on facts elucidated during the summary judgment proceeding that Plaintiffs expressly acknowledged were undisputed or failed to dispute with contradictory evidence. For example, during oral argument before this court appellants’ counsel argued that Kimberly did not move to Texas, but counsel did not dispute that Kimberly went to Texas, and that she wanted to move there. Indeed, Mackie testified at her deposition that Kimberly told Mackie she wanted to move to Texas. 2 Mackie discovered that Kimberly had misappropriated corporate funds from Goldman Inc. Following that discovery,