 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tomassi v. Scarff12/28/2000
step" in a "scheme by [the parties] to have Reliance foot the bill for the damage caused by Moreno's murderous rampage." The success of Reliance's position depends on two assumptions: that the underlying judgment was procured through collusion; and that the judgment will bind Reliance in the subsequent lawsuit brought against Reliance by Campbell Towing.
Reliance cites the general rule that " person who would be bound by the doctrine of res judicata, whether or not a party of record, is a party sufficiently aggrieved to entitle him to appeal." (Leoke v. County of San Bernardino (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 767, 771; In re Lauren P. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 763, 771.) However, Reliance will not necessarily be bound by the finding that Campbell Towing was liable. An insurer that has received notice of the action against its insured but refuses to defend will be bound by the resulting judgment on all issues material to liability, in the absence of fraud or collusion. (Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 558, 562; Samson v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 220, 240.) In the pending lawsuit by Campbell Towing against Reliance, Reliance will have the opportunity to assert not only that no coverage existed but also that the liability judgment was a product of collusion between Campbell Towing and the Tomassis. (Cf. Pruyn v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 500, 517, 530; Andrade v. Jennings (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 307, 325-326; Xebec Development Partners, Let. v. National Union Fire Ins. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 501, 549; see also Sunseri v. Camperos Del Valle Stables, Inc. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 559, 561.) If Reliance is successful on this issue, collateral estoppel will not be applied to establish Campbell Towing's liability.
We thus agree with the trial court's determination that Reliance is not aggrieved in this procedural setting. The effect of the Tomassi-Campbell Towing judgment on Reliance is only indirect and contingent, not direct and immediate. Reliance is therefore not aggrieved within the meaning of section 663, and the trial court did not err in denying the motion to vacate the judgment.
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
Cottle, P.J.
Mihara, J.
Trial Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
Trial Judge: Hon. John A. Flaherty
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|