 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bullard v. California State Automobile Association5/10/2005
od told the Bullards' attorney Ryan Artola that CSAA allowed only one year for first party claims arising out of injuries in 2002 and two years for first party claims arising from injuries in 2003. She explained that as to the latter, the statute of limitations would not have expired prior to the effective date of the newly enacted legislation.
January 1, 2004 The amendment to section 11580.2, subdivision (i) became effective. (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 8, subd. (c), par. (1).)
The parties' declarations make clear that the Bullards' attorneys did not rely on CSAA's alleged failure to respond to the suggestion that the February 2003 letter constituted a demand for arbitration or CSAA's representations that section 11580.2, subdivision (i) was governed by a one-year statute of limitations. Instead, they relied on their own erroneous belief that the statute of limitations was two years. Moreover, the amendment to 11580.2 which the Bullards claimed was applicable was not effective until January 1, 2004, well after the one-year statute of limitations expired in this case. Thus, even assuming the parties disagree on whether Lowry and Fossum discussed the February 2003 letter in their April 2003 telephone conversation, the Bullards' failure to establish reliance is fatal to their estoppel claim.
As to the Bullards' claim that CSAA was operating under a secret policy that treated policy-holders differently based on when they sustained injury, there is no evidence in the record CSAA concealed material facts or that the Bullards relied on any alleged misrepresentations. We therefore conclude the record supports the trial court's factual finding on that question.
IV. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473
The trial court granted CSAA's motion for relief to file their opposition after the filing deadline had passed, under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). The statute reads in relevant part: "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)
The Bullards argue that the trial court abused its discretion, claiming CSAA's evidence was insufficient to warrant the court's grant of relief. They complain that CSAA failed to show how the error occurred. The Bullards insist that " he uncontroverted evidence indicates that the error occurred as a result of [the secretary's] mischaracterization of the type of legal document she was calendaring as a law and motion matter rather than as a response to a Petition to Compel Arbitration . . . ."
"`"In reviewing the evidence in support of a section 473 motion, we extend all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the judgment. The disposition of such a motion rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion."'" (MJM, Inc. v. Tootoo (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 598, 603-604.) We conclude there was no abuse of discretion in this case.
"`A party who seeks relief under section 473 on the basis of mistake or inadvertence of counsel must demonstrate that such mistake, inadvertence, or genera
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.
|
|