 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hinton v. Grange Insurance Group11/6/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
While visiting the cattle ranch of Eldon Beck, plaintiff Jonni Hinton suffered severe injuries when struck by a gate tossed into the air by a cow. Defendants Grange Insurance Group, Grange Insurance Association, and Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Company (Grange) provided Beck's homeowner's and farm machinery insurance policies. Hinton sued Beck in Shasta County Superior Court for negligence. Grange denied coverage and refused to defend under Beck's policy. Beck and Hinton entered into a "Covenant not to Execute and Assignment" in which Beck assigned to Hinton all his rights against Grange. Beck suffered a default, and the Shasta County court entered judgment against Beck for $2,006,627.11. Hinton filed suit against Grange, alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent procurement of insurance.
Following a change of venue to Sacramento County Superior Court, Grange filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, finding the Shasta County court lacked jurisdiction to enter a default judgment in the absence of a personally served statement of damages. Hinton appeals, arguing the Shasta County court's judgment was voidable, not void. We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Underlying Action
In November 1993 Hinton visited Beck's Shasta County ranch to watch cattle being rounded up. As Hinton stood near the corral's metal gate, a cow stuck its head under the bottom of the gate, lifted it, and tossed it into the air. The gate crashed onto Hinton's head, causing severe injuries that required numerous surgeries. Hinton, 24 at the time, remains permanently disabled.
Beck tendered his defense to Grange, requesting indemnity in November 1994. That same month, Hinton filed suit against Beck in Shasta County Superior Court (Shasta court), alleging Beck negligently allowed the corral gate to be used in a dangerous condition. The complaint sought damages in an undisclosed amount. In October 1995 Hinton filed a first amended complaint for damages, again alleging Beck was negligent and seeking unspecified damages.
Grange notified Beck in December 1994 that it was denying Beck's claim for defense and indemnity. Grange denied coverage based on the policy's business exclusion and because the policy did not provide coverage for "pasture land that is not described on your policy."
After Beck's counsel notified Hinton's counsel that Grange had denied coverage for Hinton's injuries, Hinton and Beck met and discussed assigning Hinton the proceeds of any potential suit against Grange. They discussed the possibility of taking Beck's default and giving him a covenant not to execute against his property in exchange for an assignment of rights against Grange. Beck agreed to settle.
In June 1995 Hinton filed a request for entry of default against Beck. The request included a statement of damages, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11, in the sum of $722,146.75. The default was entered on June 30, 1995.
However, the statement of damages was never personally served on Beck as required by section 425.11, subdivision (d)(1). Instead, Beck was served with the entry of default by mail.
Beck executed a "Covenant not to Execute and Assignment." Hinton relinquished h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|