 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watson v. Financial Pacific Insurance Co.2/6/2002
nebrake v. McCormick (1950) 35 Cal.2d 16, 18-19.) The rationale for the exception is that a party cannot object to the lack of the right to cross-examine the declarant, since the party himself made the statement. (Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 29B pt. 4 West's Ann. Evid. Code, supra, foll. ยง 1220, p. 71.)
Appellants argue in the alternative that their deposition testimony was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to constitute admissions about the scope of Watson Construction & Development's business activities or about the relationship between that entity and Watson Rentals, but it is unnecessary to consider this argument. Because our review of a summary judgment is de novo, we affirm if summary judgment is proper, regardless of the reasons for the trial court's ruling. (Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 33, 39; Vournas v. Fidelity Nat. Tit. Ins. Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 668, 674, fn. 7.) Whether the deposition testimony was properly admitted is of no consequence, because our conclusion that there is no coverage for the claims in the Darby action is based on the unambiguous language of FPIC policy, not on the deposition testimony of appellants or other extrinsic evidence. (ACL Technologies, Inc. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Ins. Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1773, 1790-1792; Ray v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 1044.)
At the end of their reply brief, appellants make a cursory argument, unsupported by any citation of authority, that summary judgment was improper because FPIC did not present any evidence to refute their allegations that FPIC's agent acted fraudulently or negligently by not procuring the coverage that they requested. Appellants have not provided any explanation for their failure to present this argument in their opening brief, and we will not consider it. (See Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 894, fn. 10; Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, fn. 3.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Swager, J.
We concur:
Stein, Acting P.J.
Marchiano, J.
|