 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hashimoto v. Republic Insurance Company2/13/2002
ot ordered by the court; statutorily prohibited expert witness fees; statutorily prohibited postage, telephone and copying charges; and several other disallowed items. Republic also claims the Hashimotos failed to substantiate their costs, failed to document their costs and asserted some nonexistent legal theory they were entitled to all their costs as "Brandt" costs.
Mr. Hashimoto testified at trial to establish he and his wife had suffered financial injury of their own in pursuing the litigation against Republic. He explained they were responsible for costs of $20,000 incurred in the underlying litigation. Mr. Hashimoto also testified they would be liable for at least $69,000 for costs incurred so far in bringing the present lawsuit, and this would be true whether or not the Hashimotos prevailed at trial. The jury awarded the Hashimotos $83,000 to cover their costs.
Republic's arguments obscure what actually occurred in this case. The court in fact taxed the Hashimotos' costs by $83,000, or the amount the jury had already awarded the Hashimotos to cover their costs of litigation. In fashioning its order the court reasoned Republic had conceded $48,991.80 of the Hashimotos' claimed costs were properly substantiated and statutorily authorized. In addition, the court noted the Hashimotos would still be responsible for unrecoverable costs not specifically authorized by statute. Thus, to both permit the Hashimotos to recover otherwise unrecoverable costs without granting them a windfall, the court approved an order for costs of the remaining balance of $30,813.21 after deducting the jury's award of $83,000.
We find no abuse of the court's discretion given the circumstances presented. The court's order acknowledges the Hashimotos' status as prevailing parties yet prevents them from receiving an unwarranted windfall or double recovery.
Substantial evidence supports the jury's award to the Hashimotos of $83,000 in costs. There is no additional requirement the jury's findings be analyzed and/or dissected to determine whether they, in addition, satisfy all statutory conditions for their allowance. In any event, Republic is hard-pressed to demonstrate any prejudice from the court's ruling. Had the court instead decided to tax all costs except the $48,991.80 conceded by Republic to be valid, authorized and substantiated, while leaving unaffected the jury's award of $83,000, Republic would have had to pay nearly $20,000 more than it now is required to under the court's order. Given the circumstances Republic's claim of abuse of discretion is not well taken.
DISPOSITION
The judgment on the jury verdict is modified to reverse the jury's finding of comparative bad faith. The jury's award of $4,450,000 on the Hashimotos' cause of action for bad faith is reinstated in full without reduction for Matt's alleged comparative bad faith of 25 percent. As so modified, the judgment on the jury verdict is affirmed in its entirety. The judgment dismissing Matt Horeczko's complaint is affirmed, as are all post-judgment orders of the trial court. The Hashimotos are awarded their costs of appeal. All other parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
WOODS, J.
PERLUSS, 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.
|
|