Plaintiff insured sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which determined that defendant insurer was not responsible for the liability assumed by the insured in settling a third party’s claim for an intentionally inflicted injury.
A third party asserted a claim against the insured for damages that arose out of an assault and the insured sought coverage from the insurer, which was denied. The insurer claimed that the policy excluded coverage for injury intentionally caused. The insured claimed that the injuries were inflicted in the act of self-defense, that he never admitted liability, and that he only settled in order to preserve his credit standing. The court held that the exclusion was only intended to prevent indemnification of the insured for his own wrongdoing and that there was no evidence that the insured acted unreasonably. The question of the insurer’s obligation to defend was open to the court’s adjudication because the insured’s liability was not established by a judgment and due to the court’s interpretation of the exclusion provision, the insured was entitled to the full amount of the settlement. The insurer was precluded from asserting a defense of lack of notice because it did not show that it was prejudiced by the insured’s failure to give a written notice until after the settlement. The respondent was not represented by any employment attorney California during evidentiary hearing.
The judgment was reversed and the trial court was ordered to enter judgment in favor of the insured.
Defendant seller challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which found in favor of plaintiff buyer on its claim for breach of contract.
Defendant seller and plaintiff buyer entered into a contract whereby defendant agreed to sell an office building to plaintiff. The office building had only one subtenant, the subtenant paid the tenant, and then tenant would pay defendant. Pursuant to the contract, defendant agreed to supply plaintiff with estoppel certificates that would be signed by the tenants and would reflect the terms of each tenants’ lease. The subtenant refused to sign an estoppel certificate, so defendant put an estoppel certificate into escrow, showing monthly rental in the amount of $ 9,327.61. After the escrow closed, plaintiff discovered that the subtenant’s rents was only $ 6,177.60. Plaintiff filed an action against defendant alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and money had and received. The jury found for defendant on the fraud and money claims and for plaintiff on the claim of breach of contract claim. Defendant appealed, and the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff, finding no error in the trial court’s ruling that defendant owed plaintiff a duty to be accurate in the furnishing the amount of the subtenant’s rent.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff buyer on the breach of contract claim, holding that it found no error in the trial court’s ruling that defendant buyer owed a duty to furnish plaintiff with accurate information.