Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, former police officers and firefighters employed by local public agencies, filed suit alleging that CalPERS's failure to pay enhanced retirement benefits under the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL), Gov. Code section 20000 et seq., gave rise to a variety of causes of action. In these consolidated appeals, the court affirmed in part and concluded that neither the PERL nor plaintiffs' contracts entitle plaintiffs to the additional retirement benefits they seek and therefore, their causes of action for breach of statutory duty and breach of contract fail as a matter of law. Further, plaintiffs' causes of action for constitutional torts also fail because, as a matter of law, CalPERS's interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions does not deny plaintiffs due process or equal protection of law and does not effect an unconstitutional impairment of contract. The court reversed, however, as to the causes of action for rescission and breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs' pleading was sufficient to survive demurrer and therefore demurrer should have been overruled as to these causes of action. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that CalPERS failed to disclose the potential loss of the value of purchased service credit if plaintiffs suffered disability - a disclosure that CalPERS, as a fiduciary, is alleged to have been required to make. View "Marzec v. CalPERS" on Justia Law

In 2010, Debra Hackett was seriously injured in an accident in Sacramento County in which a tractor and trailer owned by Silva Trucking, Inc. and driven by Elaine McDonold jackknifed and collided with the vehicle being driven by Hackett. In 2012, the Hacketts filed a personal injury action in Sacramento County against Silva Trucking and McDonold. The jury awarded the Hacketts $34.9 million in damages. Silva Trucking was insured by Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (CCIC), who retained the law firm Cholakian & Associates to provide a defense. Silva Trucking had an excess liability insurance policy with Lexington Insurance Company (LIC), who retained the law firm Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP (Lewis Brisbois) as counsel. In 2014, Silva Trucking and McDonold brought suit in Sacramento County against LIC, CCIC, Cholakian & Associates and individual attorneys Kevin Cholakian and Jennifer Kung (collectively Cholakian), and Lewis Brisbois and individual attorney Ralph Zappala (collectively Lewis Brisbois). As to LIC and CCIC, the complaint alleged bad faith and breach of contract. As to the law firms and attorneys, the complaint alleged legal malpractice. The gravamen of the complaint was that the insurers unreasonably refused to accept the policy limit demand when the insured’s liability was clear and damages were known to be in excess of the policy limit. The attorneys failed to advise their insurer clients to accept the demand and the consequences of failing to do so, and failed to advise Silva Trucking and McDonold of their need for personal counsel. LIC and CCIC responded with demurrers. Lewis Brisbois answered with a general denial and asserted 22 affirmative defenses. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, subdivision (a), where an action has been filed in the “wrong venue,” a defendant may move to transfer the case to the “proper court for the trial thereof.” In such a case, “if an answer is filed,” the court may consider opposition to the motion to transfer and may retain the action in the county where filed to promote the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice. The question this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review was whether, in a multi-defendant case, an answer must be filed by all defendants before the court may consider opposition to the motion to transfer venue. The Court concluded the answer was yes. In this case, the trial court considered opposition to the motion before all defendants had answered the complaint. Accordingly, the Court issued a preemptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying the motion to transfer and to issue a new order granting the motion. View "Cholakian & Assoc. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Customers of a securities firm made claims against that firm based on real estate investments the firm’s broker-dealers recommended. An entity that had an interest in and operated each of the real estate investments filed for bankruptcy, and at least some of the real estate investments became debtors in that bankruptcy proceeding. The appointed examiner in the bankruptcy proceeding found that the entity was engaged in a fraudulent “Ponzi scheme.” When the securities firm applied for professional liability insurance, it disclosed one of the customer claims but not the facts that would support other potential customer claims arising out of investments through the same entity as that involved in the disclosed claim. The insurer refused to defend against undisclosed claims because the policy’s application included an exclusion for nondisclosure of facts that might lead to a claim. The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of the insurer: There was no insurance coverage because all of the undisclosed claims arose out of the same events as the disclosed claim. The securities firm was aware of facts and circumstances that might result in a claim or claims being made against it, which awareness it was required to disclose. View "Crown Capital Secs., L.P. v. Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183 was promulgated in 2010 following complaints by homeowners who lost their residences in wildfires that they did not have enough insurance to cover the full cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes because, when they bought their insurance, the estimates of replacement value were too low. The Regulation prohibits a “licensee” from “communicat[ing] an estimate of replacement cost to an applicant or insured in connection with an application for renewal of a homeowners’ insurance policy that provides coverage on a replacement cost basis” that does not satisfy specific content and format provisions. Noncompliance “constitutes making a statement with respect to the business of insurance which is misleading and which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known to be misleading, pursuant to Insurance Code section 790.03.” Insurance Associations argued that the Insurance Commissioner lacked authority to define new unfair business practices; questioned whether the record established a high volume of complaints and whether the problem was caused by lack of knowledge; and complained that the expense of compliance would discourage carriers from providing insurance. They obtained a declaration that the Regulation was invalid. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that the Commissioner lacked authority under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act. View "Ass'n of Cal. Ins. Cos. v. Jones" on Justia Law

Plaintiff bought the property in 2007. The last tenants moved out in 2010. Gas and electric utilities were turned off. In 2011, Plaintiff submitted a claim to Fire Insurance Exchange for a fire at the property. Exchange retained a fire investigator, who reported, “it appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant. Signs of possible habitation were present and the relatively isolated location would permit this. … firewood … and the mattress next to the large hole in the floor also supports this theory.” The property did not have a fireplace. The claims adjuster concluded “Likely transient in house and warming fire got out of hand.” The policy did not “cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days just before the loss.” Vandalism is not defined in the policy. After denial of the claim, Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. The trial court granted Exchange summary adjudication. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the exclusion did not apply. View "Ong v. Fire Ins. Exch." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Ronald Lee Cline was severely injured when his motorcycle collided with a turning car driven by a teenager with a provisional license. He settled with the driver and the driver’s parents for their $100,000 insurance policy limit. Cline executed a release that released the driver and his parents “and any other person, corporation, association, or partnership responsible in any manner or degree” for the accident. Cline subsequently sued defendant Berniece Delores Homuth, the driver’s grandmother and the sole adult in the car with him at the time of the collision, for negligent supervision. Homuth raised the release as an affirmative defense. She moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion. A court trial followed, centering on the validity of the release and whether Homuth was an intended third party beneficiary of the release. Cline appealed the judgment in favor of Homuth, arguing the extrinsic evidence demonstrated that Homuth was not an intended beneficiary of the release. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that Cline failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter Homuth’s showing that she was an intended beneficiary of the release. View "Cline v. Homuth" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was section 1571, subdivision (a) of the Unclaimed Property Law (UPL): "The [State] Controller may at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice examine the records of any [entity] if the Controller has reason to believe that the [entity] is a holder [of property] who has failed to report property that should have been reported pursuant to [the UPL]." Pursuant to this section, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiff, the State Controller (the Controller), to examine the records of defendant American National Insurance Company, a life insurance company. American National appealed, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by ignoring the irreparable injury American National would suffer from a preliminary injunction that granted the Controller the ultimate relief the Controller sought in its lawsuit; in short, says American National, the trial court's decision deprived it of an opportunity to defend itself on the merits. The Court of Appeal essentially agreed: (1) the trial court erred in granting the preliminary injunction because the court did so without a trial on the merits; (2) the standard of "reason to believe" in section 1571(a) meant specific articulable facts that would justify a belief by a reasonable person, knowledgeable in the field of unclaimed property, that an entity was not reporting property as the UPL requires (and one way in which this standard can be met was if the suspected holder of unreported property has been chosen for record examination pursuant to a general administrative plan to enforce the UPL that is based on specific neutral sources); and (3) that if the Controller proved, at trial on the merits, the significant facts underlying its preliminary injunction request, the Controller will have met this "reason to believe" standard with respect to examining the records of American National's in-force policies. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed the preliminary injunction order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Yee v. American National Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Buckminster Fuller, “Bucky,” a designer, author, and inventor, well known for popularizing the geodesic dome, died in 1983. Beginning around 2009, Maxfield manufactured and distributed products under the Buckyball and related trademarks. According to its press release, Buckyballs, “the world’s best-selling desktoy,” were “inspired and named after famous … inventor, R. Buckminster Fuller.” Buckyballs are round magnets packaged in a cube shape, which can be formed into various shapes. The Big Book of Bucky, which provides instructions, states: Buckyballs were named for Buckminster Fuller. Fuller’s Estate sued, alleging: unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) (Lanham Act); invasion of privacy (appropriation of name and likeness); unauthorized use of name and likeness, Cal. Civil Code 3344.1; and violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code 17200. Alterra had issued an insurance policy to Maxfield, effective June 2010. Alterra agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, then sought a declaration that Alterra’s policy did not provide coverage. The Estate agreed to be bound by the outcome in return for being dismissed. Because of Maxfield’s stipulation to the allegations in the coverage action and acting without leave, the Estate later responded to Alterra’s complaint. The court of appeal affirmed a holding that Alterra had no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify, based on the “intellectual property” exclusion. View "Alterra Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Estate of Buckminster Fuller" on Justia Law

In 2007, Jessica Gonzalez alleged she was sexually assaulted by Rebagliati and nine other members of the De Anza College baseball team. A year later, Gonzalez filed a civil lawsuit against her purported assailants. Rebagliati sought insurance coverage for his defense through his parents’ homeowner’s and personal umbrella policies, issued by Fire and Truck. Both companies denied coverage. Eventually, Rebagliati settled with Gonzalez, assigning Gonzalez his rights against Fire and Truck. Gonzalez sued the insurers for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract and sought recovery of judgment pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580. Her underlying allegations included accidental bodily injury, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and slander. Fire and Truck argued they had not owed Rebagliati a duty to defend. The trial court granted the insurers summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed in part. While none of Gonzalez’s claims can be construed to allege an accidental occurrence triggering coverage under the Fire policy, Truck’s umbrella policy is broadly worded and does not require an “accident” for personal injury coverage. View "Gonzalez v. Fire Ins. Exchange" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Windsor Food Quality Company, Ltd. manufactured Jose Ole frozen food products, using ground beef supplied by Westland/Hallmark Meat Company. In 2008, after a voluntary United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recall of Westland beef, Windsor made a claim under its Contamination Products Insurance policy issued by defendants-respondents QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited and Underwriters of Lloyds, London. After Lloyds denied coverage on various grounds, Windsor sued for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court granted Lloyds's summary judgment motion, finding no triable issues of material fact and no coverage. Windsor appealed. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that Windsor could not claim coverage for the recall of Westland's ground beef. The Court agreed with the trial court there were no disputed material facts and no bad faith by Lloyds. View "Windsor Food Quality v. Underwriters of Lloyds etc." on Justia Law