 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hinton v. Grange Insurance Group11/6/2002
er right to satisfy any judgment she might obtain against Beck from his personal assets, and Beck assigned to Hinton all assignable rights he possessed against Grange.
In July 1998 the Shasta court held a prove-up hearing on Beck's default. Hinton testified as to the circumstances surrounding her accident and her resulting medical problems. Hinton also presented expert deposition testimony concerning corral gates.
When asked by the court for an estimate of requested damages, Hinton's counsel responded, " couple million bucks." Hinton's counsel also informed the court there was no prayer for damages. The court inquired: "There was never any demand to state damages or -- I mean, is there a limitation on the jurisdiction to the court?" After Hinton's counsel responded he didn't believe so, the court stated: "Well, assuming there isn't -- and I would ask you to make sure about that -- the judgment will be for two million dollars."
The Shasta court entered judgment against Beck in the amount of $2,000,000 plus interest, costs, and disbursements. A copy of the judgment was delivered to Grange with a demand for payment. Grange refused.
2. The Present Action
In July 1999 Hinton filed a complaint against Grange in the Shasta court. The parties stipulated to a change of venue to Sacramento.
In Sacramento County Superior Court (Sacramento court), Hinton filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged breach of contract based on Grange's refusal to defend or indemnify Beck, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent procurement of insurance.
Grange moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion. The order states: "It is undisputed that the Statement of Damages required under CCP §425.11(b) was never served upon Eldon Beck, the defendant insured, in the underlying personal injury action.
[Citations.] In the absence of service of the Statement of Damages upon the defendant insured, or a written stipulation to judgment being taken against him in a specified amount, the entry of default is void, as a denial of due process. A judgment may not be entered in excess of the amount demanded in the complaint or in the Statement of Damages. CCP §§580, 425.11. Here, the $2,000,000 judgment exceeded even the amount claimed in the Statement of Damages which was never served upon the insured. A prayer for damages according to proof does not give adequate notice. [Citation.] The jurisdictional defect is not waived and cannot be cured. Twine v. Compton Supermarket (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 514, 517- 518. In the absence of a valid judgment, plaintiff Jonni Hinton's claims against defendants fail. However, if plaintiff is able to secure a valid judgment, then plaintiff's claim may be revivable, an issue on which this court is not making any determination at this time." Entry of judgment followed.
Approximately one month after the Sacramento court granted Grange's motion for summary judgment, Hinton's counsel appeared ex parte in the Shasta court and obtained a new default judgment, nunc pro tunc as of July 22, 1998. In the amended judgment the court found Beck was fully represented by counsel throughout the litigation, filed case management statements acknowledging his default, and served settlement conference statements stating he had refrained from acting to set aside the default in exchange for a covenant not to execute. The court found Beck "impliedly waived his right to service of a written statement of damages on him by way of his stipulation not to set aside any default and to assign his rights to plaintiff in exchange for a covenant not to execute against his personal assets
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.
|
|