 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sprague v. California Pacific Bankers & Insurance Ltd.12/27/2001
o provide coverage for the deaths of William and Grace, were negligent in failing to provide a defense, and caused $3,000,000 and other damages. Count II asserts that Defendants intentionally did not provide aviation liability insurance, intentionally misled William and Doris into thinking they had aviation liability coverage, misrepresented the existence of aviation liability coverage, intentionally refused to provide a defense, and their conduct amounted to bad faith and fraud and entitled Plaintiffs to punitive and exemplary damages. Count III asserts the existence of a contract obligating Defendants to provide insurance coverage and to provide a defense and a breach of that contract caused $3,000,000 damages plus interest and attorney fees and costs.
On January 22, 1997, Defendants moved for a summary judgment that they were not liable for the $3,000,000 stipulated judgment in Civil No. 94-289K. On June 23, 1997, the court partially granted and partially denied this motion when it entered its order that Defendants "are not bound by the amount of the stipulated judgment in Civil Number 94-289K. The court further finds and concludes that an assignee is allowed to bring suit even if a covenant not to execute has been agreed to." The court bifurcated the jury trial into two phases. During Phase One, the court entered a directed verdict in favor of Tokunaga.
On October 29, 1998, at the conclusion of Phase One of the trial, the jury made its findings on a special verdict form.
In response to Question No. 1, the jury found that the following parties were or were not negligent:
WERE NOT NEGLIGENT
| Maydwell and Doris
| Sally Nottage
| Insurance Resources
|
|
|
|
In light of the answers to Questions Nos. 4 and 5, it appears that the act or acts of negligence related to the placement of the insurance by an unlicensed agent or broker with an unauthorized insurer and the insurance by an unauthorized insurer.
In response to Question No. 2, the jury found that the following did or did not commit fraud against Maydwell and Doris:
DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD
| Chandler
| California Pacific
|
The following part of the closing argument to the jury by the attorney for Plaintiffs indicates that the act or acts of fraud were as follows:
It's also very obvious that when the two principals and the corporate officers of [Aviation Insurance Associates, Inc.] do not hold the proper licenses to sell any type of aviation liability policy, that there's also a misrepresentation of themselves and a fraud being committed. . . .
And when they signed these insurance endorsements that Ivan Kam signed, . . . , the purpose of that was to cause the Millards to rely upon that information, to cause the Millards to believe that in fact they had insurance coverage for which they had paid. And that is fraudulent conduct.
So I would submit to you that with regard to committing fraud, California Pacific Bankers & Insurance also has committed fraud. Why? Because they didn't even respond. . . .
And when a company issues a policy and states that they're going to provide coverage, aviation liability coverage, and then they take no steps to provide the coverage that has been purchased, and their agents have been paid for that coverage, that is fraud.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|