 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bullard v. California State Automobile Association5/10/2005
Ins. Co. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 371, 375.) They offer a different basis for applying estoppel, asserting that CSAA breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by: (1) failing to correct their paralegal's belief that they had already made a demand for arbitration and/or that any demand was subject to a two-year statute of limitations; and (2) "applying a different period of limitations to two different categories of policyholder ." The Bullards maintain that " t is clear from the record of the lower court . . . that there was enough evidence before the trial court to apply the principles of estoppel to prevent [CSAA] from raising Insurance Code [section] 11580.2(i) as a bar to the institution of arbitration proceedings." We conclude the trial court did not err in finding no "factual basis to apply principles of estoppel."
"Estoppel in pais" or "estoppel by conduct" arises from the declarations or conduct of the party to be estopped. (11 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1990) Equity, § 177, p. 858.) "Whenever a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not, in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it." (Evid. Code, § 623.)
The elements of estoppel include the following: 1. There must have been a false representation or a concealment of material facts; 2. The representation must have been made with knowledge, actual or virtual, of the facts; 3. The party to whom it was made must have been ignorant, actually and permissibly, of the truth of the matter; 4. It must have been made with the intention, actual or virtual, that the other party should act upon it; 5. The other party must have been induced to act upon it.' [Citations.]" (Wood v. Blaney (1895) 107 Cal. 291, 295.) The estoppel claim fails if any one of the elements is missing. (Hair v. State of California (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 321, 328 [no estoppel where plaintiff did not rely upon any allegedly erroneous information provided by defendants].) The existence of estoppel is a question of fact. (DRG/Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Chopstix Dim Sum Café & Takeout III, Ltd. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 54, 61.)
A simple timeline, based on undisputed facts, reveals that the Bullards failed to demonstrate the essential element of reliance with respect to CSAA's alleged failure to correct the Bullards' attorneys' belief that the demand for arbitration was sufficient and/or subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
June 16, 2002 The Bullards were injured in an accident involving an uninsured motorist.
February 10, 2003 Attorney Morgan sent CSAA written notice of the uninsured motorist claim. The Bullards do not dispute the trial court's finding that the letter did not constitute a demand for arbitration.
April 23/24, 2003 Fossum told claims adjuster Lowry in a telephone conversation that there was a two-year limitations period for the claims preservation statute. Lowry responded that the two-year statute of limitations did not apply.
June 16, 2003 The one-year limitations period expired for preserving right to arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim under section 11580.2, subdivision (i).
June 17/18, 2003 Lowry asked attorney Morgan whether the Bullards had filed a lawsuit against Hall.
June 19, 2003 The Bullards filed their personal injury lawsuit against Hall.
July 14, 2003 The Governor approved Senate Bill No. 333, amending section 11580.2, subdivision (i) by enlarging the limitations period to two years. (Stats. 2003, ch. 56, p. 1.)
December 2003 CSAA attorney Wo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|