 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salyer v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
had been raised for the first time on appeal. (See Smith, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 281; B & P Development Corp. v. City of Saratoga, supra, 185 Cal.App.3d at p. 959.) Because the question was raised several times in the trial court, a fortiori, it can be addressed now. Therefore, we need not concern ourselves with the matter of when Anaheim raised the question at the trial level and the effect of Anaheim's timing.
(e) Estoppel
(i) Introduction
396 argues that Anaheim should be estopped from asserting that the claim was filed late, because Anaheim knew about problems with the reservoir and failed to disclose them. Anaheim counters that 396 is raising this issue for the first time on appeal and that the trial court never found there was any estoppel. Anaheim is in error.
As indicated above, before the commencement of the Phase II trial, Anaheim filed a motion for summary judgment based on the failure of 396 to file its claim in a timely fashion. In its opposition to that motion, 396 argued, inter alia, that Anaheim was estopped from asserting that 396's claim was untimely because Anaheim "knew of the potential problems regarding its reservoir" and "knew of the potential impact of the reservoir on the slope" and "intentionally concealed these problems in order to avoid suit [citation]." 396 argued "that Anaheim had notice of the condition that gave rise to the claims and hid the information from the claimants." The court apparently denied the motion.
Anaheim raised the timeliness issue again in a Phase II trial brief On July 3, 2002, the court provided its oral rulings on the Phase II issues determined by the court. The issue of the timely filing of 396's claim was addressed once again. 396 asserted that the issue had been fully resolved on the motion for summary judgment. However, 396 and Anaheim agreed that the court had been unclear as to why it had denied the motion. The court then articulated a finding that 396's claim was not barred by the Tort Claims Act. It explained that to rule otherwise would result in a windfall to Anaheim.
Anaheim has provided us with no Phase II statement of decision. This being the case, "`all intendments will favor the trial court's ruling and it will be presumed on appeal that the trial court found all facts necessary to support the judgment.' [Citation.]" (Schubert v. Reynolds (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 100, 104.) Here, the court stated that to rule in favor of Anaheim on the Tort Claims Act issue would be to create a windfall in favor of Anaheim. It is not unusual for a court to employ the doctrine of estoppel in order "to craft a judgment designed to prevent a windfall to one party at the inappropriate expense of another. [Citation.]" (J. H. Thompson Corp. v. DC Contractors (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1361-1362, fn. omitted.) Inasmuch as the trial court's ruling was predicated on the intention to prevent a windfall, and 396 had raised the issue of estoppel, we infer that the court ruled on the ground of estoppel and presume that the trial court found all facts necessary to support an estoppel. With this in mind, we turn to the parties' arguments with respect to the estoppel theory.
On appeal, 396 asserts there are three separate bases for estoppel: (1) Anaheim's concealment of the results of McLarty's July 1997 investigation of the landslide site; (2) Anaheim's omission to report the slope failure and seepage to the Division of Safety of Dams, as required by Water Code section 6101; and (3) Anaheim's failure to give warning of the dangerous condition of the reservoir. As we shall show, we need only address the third assertion to resolve the matter.
(ii) Four-part Test
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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|