HOLDINGS: [1]-Certified questions were submitted to the California Supreme Court because resolution of questions concerning the interpretation of Cal Civ. Code §§ 1916-12-2 was essential to the more than 300 California insurers and millions of policyholders who had outstanding policy loans, and current conflicting interpretations of state law created uncertainty around policy loans. Parties’ litigation lawyer appeal.
Outcome
Certified questions submitted to California Supreme Court.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Legal arguments not presented below were forfeited on appeal after the trial court sustained a demurrer based on failure to file a compulsory cross-complaint under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 426.10, subd. (c), 426.30, subd. (a), because case law requiring appellate courts to consider any possible legal theory that might support the viability of the cause of action was inapplicable in the context of a demurrer on compulsory cross-complaint grounds, which implicated different policy considerations; [2]-The arguments newly raised on appeal were meritless in any event because the exceptions for special proceedings and declaratory claims in Code Civ. Proc., § 426.60, subds. (a), (c), did not apply to a request for an accounting that alleged a dispute involving complicated accounts, which was a suit in equity, nor was personal jurisdiction lacking under § 426.30, subd. (b)(1).
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.