Fred R. Pierce

This case involved a declaratory relief action by Travelers Insurance Company against its insured, Maurice Bouzer, concerning coverage under an uninsured motorist provision in an automobile liability policy. Bouzer was injured in an accident caused by a negligent driver whose insurer, Royal Globe, had policy limits that were partially exhausted by payments to other victims, leaving insufficient funds for Bouzer's full claim; he sought to treat the tortfeasor as uninsured and recover under his own policy's uninsured motorist coverage up to the statutory minimum. The trial court granted summary judgment for Travelers, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that the policy and Insurance Code section 11580.2 define an uninsured motorist strictly as one lacking any applicable liability insurance at the time of the accident, and an insured tortfeasor whose coverage is depleted by multiple claims does not qualify; adopting Bouzer's interpretation would improperly convert uninsured motorist coverage into open-ended excess accident insurance beyond the risk assumed in the policy.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved an election contest in the Fifth Supervisorial District of Trinity County following the November 7, 1972 general election, where Eugene Wixson defeated George Willburn by four votes amid claims of voting irregularities. The trial court invalidated the election due to failures by election boards to properly instruct voters on marking ballots and improper solicitation near polling places for a write-in candidate. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the irregularities did not affect the election results or benefit Wixson, and no statute required voiding the election without evidence that such conduct procured the winner's election. The court directed entry of judgment declaring Wixson duly elected.

elections

This case was a declaratory relief action to determine how much each of several insurance companies must pay toward an unpaid $200,000 judgment arising from a 1968 car accident. Otter, driving a Lincoln demonstrator owned by Jefferson Motors, negligently caused injuries; Pacific Indemnity covered the first $100,000, leaving the excess to be allocated among policies issued to Jefferson Motors by INA (an umbrella excess policy), General, and American Home. The trial court ruled that only INA was liable for the balance. The appellate court affirmed that American Home had no liability but held that the trial court had improperly absolved General, concluding that General's underlying policy provided coverage for the permissive use of the vehicle in connection with Jefferson Motors' business. The court also addressed and denied a motion to strike portions of INA's brief that criticized the dual representation of General and INA by the same trial counsel, finding an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a traffic accident in which a truck's trailer jackknifed and struck a car, injuring the plaintiffs (Crews). The original suit against the trucking company (Trails) and its driver resulted in a jury verdict holding Bendix, the supplier of an allegedly defective air hose, solely liable; that judgment was affirmed on appeal. Trails then pursued its deferred cross-complaint against Bendix seeking damages, including attorney fees and expenses incurred in defending the first phase of the litigation. The trial court directed a verdict disallowing the attorney fees and other untaxable costs, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 and the general rule preclude recovery of attorney fees in tort actions absent exceptional circumstances (as recognized in Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp.), which were not present here, and that the claim also failed under principles of implied indemnity.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Burns v. City Council, a licensed real estate broker and contractor sued the City of Folsom and its officials after the building inspector denied his application for permits to construct 30 single-family homes, despite his plans complying with then-existing ordinances; he sought damages under tort theories including negligence, vicarious liability, conspiracy, and fraud, alleging improper motives behind a new minimum square-footage ordinance adopted shortly after his application. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the California Tort Claims Act (Government Code sections 818.4 and 821.2) grants public entities and employees immunity from liability for the issuance, denial, or revocation of permits, regardless of whether the decision was discretionary or ministerial, and that mandamus rather than damages was the appropriate remedy; the court noted that the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative appeals available under city ordinances. Judicial notice was taken of the relevant building ordinances, including the one imposing a 1,500-square-foot minimum for single-family dwellings.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Shapiro v. Ogle, mother and son plaintiffs sued the president, vice-president, and employee of a mobile home dealer (operating as Pan Pacific) after paying $5,000 in earnest money toward a custom-built mobile home under two successive written contracts calling for cash on delivery. Following unreasonable delivery delays and a mutual rescission, plaintiffs sought return of the funds plus interest and attorney fees under specific provisions of the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act (Civ. Code §§ 2981-2984.4), which the trial court applied after finding the agreements were conditional sales contracts. The Court of Appeal affirmed the $5,000 judgment with interest but reversed the attorney fees award, holding as a matter of first impression that the Act's requirements and remedies do not govern a pure cash sale of a to-be-built mobile home when the buyer has paid only earnest money and the parties later mutually rescind. The court further held that individual defendants could not be held liable absent evidence they acted outside corporate capacity, though any misjoinder objection was waived by failure to demur. Directions were given to enter judgment denying attorney fees, with each party to bear its own appellate costs.

business & regulatory