 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Notrica v. State Compensation Insurance Fund3/17/1999
ent of the number. This disparity between damages and some $300,000 in attorneys' fees satisfies the purpose of Section 1021.5 to encourage litigation in the public interest by covering such fees. (Id. at p. 1414.)
Finally, SCIF argues that the fee award should be paid out of the punitive damage award. Subdivision (c) of Section 1021.5 provides that the fees should not be paid out of the recovery. (See Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at p. 1417, fn. 3.) The jury decided to award punitive damages without regard to the potential attorneys' fee award. We see no reason to interfere with that decision here.
Because we conclude that the attorneys' fee award was proper, it is not necessary to discuss the application of Brandt v. Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 813. DISPOSITION
The judgment with regard to punitive damages is reversed and the matter is remanded for a new trial only on the issue of punitive damages unless, within 30 days from remand, Notrica shall file with the clerk of the court and serve upon SCIF a written consent to a reduction of the punitive damages award to the sum of $5 million, in which event the judgment shall be modified to reflect an award of punitive damages in favor of Notrica in that amount and be affirmed in its entirety. Costs on appeal are awarded to Notrica.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
We concur:
VOGEL (C.S.), P.J.
CURRY, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|