California Court of Appeal, 4th District — appointed by Joseph Graham Davis
Clarendon America Insurance v. North American Capacity Insurance
California Court of Appeal · 2010-06-15 · cited 13×
This case involved a dispute between two insurers, Clarendon and NAC, over NAC's obligation to contribute to defense costs that Clarendon incurred defending their mutual insured, Tanamera, in a construction defect lawsuit brought by homeowners. Clarendon sought declaratory relief, equitable contribution, and indemnity after NAC refused to defend, arguing that its policy's $25,000 per-claim self-insured retention applied separately to each of the eight covered homes and had not been satisfied. The trial court granted NAC summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, holding that NAC failed to show no potential for coverage as a matter of law because the policy language was ambiguous regarding whether the SIR applied once to the entire action or per home, and the insured could have reasonably expected single application based on other policy terms and circumstances at issuance.
business & regulatorytorts & liability
Beutz v. County of Riverside
California Court of Appeal · 2010-05-26 · cited 11×
In Beutz v. County of Riverside, a property owner challenged a special assessment district created by the County of Riverside to fund ongoing landscaping and maintenance costs for four public parks in Wildomar, arguing that the assessment violated article XIII D of the California Constitution (enacted by Proposition 218) by failing to separate general benefits from special benefits and by not limiting the assessment to the value of special benefits conferred on the assessed parcels. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that although the County correctly based its analysis on the larger master plan project rather than just the landscaping component, it failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the assessment was proportional to and did not exceed the special benefits to the assessed properties. The court reasoned that special assessments under Proposition 218 must be supported by clear evidence distinguishing special benefits from general benefits to the public at large, and that the County's approach did not satisfy this constitutional requirement.
taxesproperty
People v. Traugott
California Court of Appeal · 2010-05-06 · cited 28×
The case involved defendant Heidi Ann Traugott, who was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine for sale and related misdemeanors after a trial in which only 11 jurors remained to return the verdicts, with the defendant absent from court. The trial court accepted the verdicts after defense counsel stipulated to proceeding without the 12th juror or the defendant present. On appeal, the court held that the defendant's state constitutional right to a unanimous 12-person verdict was violated because there was no valid waiver or forfeiture of that right, and the error was structural, requiring reversal of the judgment without addressing other issues raised.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Becker
California Court of Appeal · 2010-04-13 · cited 9×
In People v. Becker, the defendant was convicted of simple possession of Ecstasy (MDMA) under Health and Safety Code section 11377, along with other offenses from an assault, after police found 10 MDMA tablets in his possession. The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims of insufficient evidence and lack of due process notice. The court reasoned that testimony from an investigator established MDMA as either a controlled substance stimulant or an analog of methamphetamine under section 11055, providing substantial evidence for the conviction, and that the information's reference to "Ecstasy" and a "controlled substance" under section 11378 adequately notified the defendant of the charge.
criminal law
People v. Trujillo
California Court of Appeal · 2010-02-09 · cited 20×
In People v. Trujillo, the defendant fired multiple shots from a semiautomatic rifle at a moving car containing a driver and a backseat passenger after mistaking its occupants for rivals; at least two bullets struck the car but no one was injured. He was charged with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and one count of discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle; the jury acquitted him of the attempted murder charges but convicted him on the remaining counts and found he personally used a firearm. On appeal the court addressed whether the evidence supported two assault convictions when the defendant claimed he did not know about the backseat passenger. The court concluded the evidence was sufficient, holding that once the required mental state for assault is established as to one victim it applies to all others within the zone of harm even if unseen or unknown to the defendant. The court stayed the sentence on the discharge count under Penal Code section 654 and otherwise affirmed the judgment as modified.
criminal law
Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
California Court of Appeal · 2009-09-17 · cited 22×
In Cooper v. State Farm, the plaintiff, insured by State Farm, was injured in a single-car accident allegedly caused by a defective tire; after settling the property damage claim, State Farm took possession of the vehicle and tire, had it examined, informed the plaintiff of the defect finding, and promised to retain the tire, but later destroyed it. The plaintiff sued the tire manufacturer but faced difficulties proving the defect claim without the evidence, then added claims against State Farm for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and negligent destruction of evidence based on the promise and reliance. The trial court granted State Farm's motion for nonsuit after the plaintiff's opening statement, finding the damages too speculative under Cedars-Sinai and Temple precedents. The appellate court reversed, holding that the facts alleged a prima facie case of detrimental reliance on State Farm's voluntary undertaking to preserve the tire, that the opening statement supported an inference the tire was defective and the underlying case could have succeeded, and that damages were reasonably ascertainable under promissory estoppel or similar theories.
torts & liabilityprocedure