Defendant city sought review of an inverse condemnation judgment from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which awarded damages to plaintiff property owner. The owner cross-appealed the partial grant of the city’s motion for new trial on a cause of action for breach of contract. The defendant had a civil defense lawyer California present a strong defense at trial to the jury.
The owner alleged that the city’s announcements of airport construction plans, some of which showed possible configurations of the airport that would place runways directly through the owner’s business park, substantially interfered with sales of property within the business park and diminished the value of the property. The owner also alleged that a diversion of truck traffic, which caused frequent traffic congestion on nearby streets, hampered access to the business park. The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of inverse condemnation as to both theories. The owner did not show that the city’s announcements concerning the proposed airport subjected the owner to direct and special injury; rather, the evidence established that owners of other business and industrial parks in the area were affected in the same ways. The traffic problems did not amount to a substantial impairment of the right of access because there was a reasonable means of ingress and egress at all times, although circuitous and slow. A new trial was proper because a prior order sustaining a demurrer was sufficiently firm for purposes of issue preclusion.
The court reversed the judgments on the inverse condemnation claims regarding the airport and the truck traffic, directed the trial court to enter judgment for the city on those claims, and affirmed the order that granted the city’s motion for a new trial on the claim of breach of contract.
Defendant insurer challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which awarded plaintiff insured $ 15,271 in general damages, $ 250,000 for emotional distress, and $ 1.25 million for punitive damages in an action alleging misconduct of defendant in dealing with a claim for stolen property.
Plaintiff insured filed an action against defendant insurance company following a criminal proceeding in which plaintiff was accused of insurance fraud. The criminal proceedings stemmed from a mandatory report that defendant was required to file upon a belief that plaintiff submitted a fraudulent insurance claim. Cal. Ins. Code § 12992. The criminal charges were later dismissed. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff awarding damages in the amount of $ 15,271 in general damages, $ 250,000 for emotional distress, and $ 1.25 million for punitive damages. Upon review, the court reversed and ordered a judgment for $ 8,771, which was the value of the stolen property. The court held that the report filed by defendant was privileged and precluded recovery for injuries sustained as a result of the criminal proceeding. The court reasoned that under Cal. Civ. Code § 12993 an insurer in the absence of malice was not subject to liability for libel or slander or any other relevant tort cause. The court found that there was no evidence defendant acted with malice and the mere filing of the report that was based upon probable cause was not enough to show malice.
The court reversed the judgment that awarded plaintiff insured damages in excess of $ 8,771, which was the value of stolen property. The court held that defendant insurer was not liable for damages for injuries attributable to a mandatory report filed by defendants pertaining to an alleged fraudulent insurance claim made by plaintiff where the report was privileged and there was no evidence of malice on the part of defendant.
*
Be the first to comment.