 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hashimoto v. Republic Insurance Company2/13/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
This is an action for insurance bad faith brought by judgment creditors of the insured. In the underlying action a jury found the insured liable for the stabbing death of the judgment creditors' son and awarded his parents nearly $5 million in damages, well over the insured's homeowners' policy limits of $300,000. Division Five of this Court affirmed the judgment. The insurance company refused to pay the judgment. It claimed the stabbing death was not a covered occurrence under the policy. It also asserted numerous defenses to coverage. The judgment creditors brought this bad faith action against the insurance company as assignees of the insured's causes of action for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. After a multi-phase and lengthy trial, a jury found the insurance company had breached its contract and had acted in bad faith by failing to adequately investigate the claims against its insured and by failing to accept offers to settle the action within policy limits. The jury awarded the judgment creditors over $7 million in damages.
All parties to the underlying litigation appeal from the judgment. In light of the California Supreme Court's decision in Kransco v. American Surplus Lines Insurance Company, we reverse the jury's finding of the insured's comparative bad faith and modify the judgment accordingly. As so modified, we affirm the judgment on the jury verdict in its entirety. We also affirm the judgment of dismissal of the insured's own causes of action, as well as all post judgment orders of the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
In August 1989 plaintiff and appellant Matthew Horeczko (Matt) moved from his parents' home in San Pedro to attend college in San Diego. Prior to his departure his sister and girlfriend arranged a going-away party for Matt on August 17, 1989, a date on which his parents would be out of town. They distributed flyers announcing the party. They hired a disc jockey to play music and purchased kegs of beer. They charged many of the male attendees a two or three dollars admittance fee to defray party costs. As many as 150 people attended the party. The party ended between 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. when Matt and his brother Greg asked everyone to leave.
Many of the attendees left but many others lingered outside Matt's house. Arguments erupted. Soon after Matt noticed his brother Greg involved in a fight with several other men. Matt started to come to his brother's aid but, as Matt later recounted it, someone hit him in the head, or came at him, with a brick. Someone else hit him with a baseball bat.
Matt had a knife in his pocket. Matt pulled the knife from his pocket and recalled slashing at persons during the fight. He then ran inside his house. Several persons pelted the house and windows with rocks and bottles.
During the melee Matt apparently had stabbed Wade Hashimoto to death. When police officers arrived someone in the crowd pointed out Matt as the likely perpetrator. Officers arrested Matt and took him and his brother Greg to the police station for questioning. At the station Matt provided a written statement to Detective Peterson explaining the essential details of the evening's events and admitting to perhaps stabbing a "black guy." Matt explained: "I came out to get everyone off the lawn. Everyone was in the street and started
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.
|
|