Site icon Ya Mazaj

The parties disputed the extent

A purchaser filed a cross-complaint

Plaintiff policyholder appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which sustained defendant insurer’s demurrer and dismissed the policyholder’s class action suit challenging the insurer’s valuation methods for personal property losses.

The parties disputed the extent of the insured’s loss in a home fire. The insured argued that the insurer’s depreciation adjustments were excessive. Instead of demanding an appraisal, the insured sought declaratory relief as to contractual and statutory interpretation issues regarding depreciation, along with a stay of the statutory appraisal process. The court held that because the Ins. Code, § 2071, appraisal procedure did not limit recourse to other remedies, the insured could pursue a unruh civil rights act cause of action for declaratory relief in accordance with Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1060, 1062, addressing issues that an appraiser lacked authority to resolve. Under such circumstances, declaratory relief could be necessary or proper within the meaning of Code Civ. Proc., § 1061. The insured did not have to submit to an appraisal under § 2071 prior to obtaining a judicial determination as to the proper interpretation of Ins. Code, § 2051, and the depreciation regulations thereunder. Because the rules governing arbitration applied to insurance appraisals, the trial court had discretion under Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (c), to stay the appraisal proceeding pending resolution of the legal questions.

The court reversed the judgment of dismissal as to all claims except a consumer claim that had been abandoned. The court remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer to the abandoned claim only and to exercise its discretion to consider whether and when declaratory relief should be granted.

In an action to recover a broker commission, appellant investors challenged the summary judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which was in favor of respondent brokers and found no triable issue as to the amount of damages, awarding respondent the full amount claimed. Appellants also challenged a jury verdict in favor of respondents in a tort action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

Respondent broker won summary judgment in a breach of contract action and a jury verdict in a tort action for conspiracy to interfere with prospective economic advantage related to a contract, against appellant investors after appellants refused to pay the commission for procurement of a commercial lease. Respondent received the full damages claim in the contract action, and received “back-up” and punitive damages in the tort action. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding appellants’ liability for breach of contract, even though there was a triable issue. The court held that no matter how the triable issue was resolved the result was that appellants were liable because they were a “party to be charged” and benefited from the agreement, and that appellants could not escape liability by having an agent sign the agreement in its place. The court reversed the damages portion of the summary judgment because there were triable issues regarding the amount. The court stated the tort claim was a viable cause of action, but reversed the verdict and remanded because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the defense of good faith reliance on legal advice.

The court affirmed the summary judgment which found appellant investors liable for breach of contract, but reversed the damages and remanded because of the triable issues regarding deductions in calculating the commission owed to respondent brokers. The court reversed the tort verdict, but stated it was a viable cause of action, and remanded for an instruction to the jury regarding “reasonable reliance on legal advice” as a justification defense.

Exit mobile version