 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ludgate Insurance Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation6/28/2000
Companies had made the required showing under section 1620, subdivision (b), that it had "funds or securities in the United States in trust or otherwise, sufficient and available to satisfy any final judgment and that it will pay the judgment without requiring suit to be brought thereon in the state where the securities or funds are located," extended to, and benefited, Ludgate, as well. It follows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in lumping Ludgate together with the rest of Procter and Companies in determining whether that plaintiff group, which included Ludgate, should be required to file a bond.
In any event, assuming error, Lockheed invited the error. In its bond motion, Lockheed did not ask the trial court to apportion the $475 million bond it requested among the individual members of Proctor and Companies pursuant to any contribution formula; rather, Lockheed asked the court to order Procter and Companies to post the bond as one unit, without regard to individual allocations. Clearly, in filing its bond motion, Lockheed proceeded on the theory that the obligation to post the bond was a joint liability by the insurers that made up the Procter and Companies group, and not a separable obligation of each individual member. Consequently, if it was error for the trial court to look at the bond issue as a joint liability issue, Lockheed invited the error, and cannot be heard to complain about it on appeal. As stated Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403: "The `doctrine of invited error' is an `application of the estoppel principle': `Where a party by his conduct induces the commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground for reversal' on appeal. [Citation.] . . . At bottom, the doctrine rests on the purpose of the principle, which prevents a party from misleading the trial court and then profiting therefrom in the appellate court. [Citations.]"
DISPOSITION
The order granting Ludgate's motion for judgment on the pleadings is reversed. The order denying Lockheed's bond motion is affirmed. This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because the main issue in this appeal is the judgment on the pleadings issue, we declare Lockheed the prevailing party in this appeal, even though it failed in the collateral bond motion issue. Lockheed is awarded the costs of this appeal.
Premo, Acting P.J.
WE CONCUR:
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.
Wunderlich, J.
BY THE COURT:
The written opinion which was filed on June 28, 2000, is certified for publication.
PREMO, Acting p.j.
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.
WUNDERLICH, J.
The written opinion which was filed on June 28, 2000, has now been certified for publication pursuant to Rule 976(b) of the California Rules of Court, and it is therefore ordered that it be published in the Official Reports.
PREMO, ACTING P.J.
Trial Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court Superior Court No. 731752
Trial Judge: The Honorable John F. Herlihy
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|