Corenbaum v. Lampkin

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CROSKEY
• Citation: Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 (Cal. App. 2013)
• Decision Date: 13 May 2013
• Docket Number: B237871,B236227
• Parties: John CORENBAUM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Dwight Eric LAMPKIN, Defendant and Appellant. Charles Carter et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Dwight Eric Lampkin, Defendant and Appellant.

215 Cal.App.4th 1308

156 Cal.Rptr.3d 347

John CORENBAUM, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Dwight Eric LAMPKIN, Defendant and Appellant.

Charles Carter et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.Dwight Eric Lampkin, Defendant and Appellant.

B236227, B237871

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Filed April 30, 2013

As Modified May 13, 2013

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

See 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 1670.

APPEALS from judgments and an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ross M. Klein, Judge. Judgments affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the matter is remanded with directions; order affirmed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC054159) (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC054349)

Sutton & Murphy, Michael S. Sutton, Mission Viejo; Rigg & Dean, Warren C. Dean, Jr., Santa Ana, and Regan Dean Phillips, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Barbara A. Jones, Kelly Bagby and Kimberly Bernard for AARP Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin; Khorrami, Scott H.Z. Sumner; LaFave & Rice, John J. Rice; Kabateck Brown Kellner, Brian Kabateck and Richard Kellner for Consumer Attorneys of America as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

The Phillips Firm, Thomas M. Phillips, Timothy E. Kearns and Michael A. Kramer, Los Angeles; Masserman & Ducey and Mitchell F. Ducey, Sherman Oaks, David S. Ettinger, Robert H. Wright, Bradley S. Pauley, Horvitz & Levy, Encino, for Defendant and Appellant.

Coddington, Hicks & Danforth, R. Wardell Loveland, Redwood City, and Hyon M. Kientzy for AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah Insurance Exchange as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Robert A. Olson for Association of Southern California Defense Counsel and Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Cole Pedroza, Curtis A. Cole, Kennedy R. Pedroza and Cassidy C. Davenport for California Medical Association, California Dental Association and California Hospital Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Fred J. Hiestand for Civil Justice Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Newdorf Legal, David B. Newdorf and Vicki F. Van Fleet for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Hager Dowling Lim & Slack, John V. Hager, Santa Barbara, for Mercury Insurance Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Sedgwick and Christina J. Imre, Los Angeles, for Personal Insurance Federation of California, Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, Property Casualty Insurers‘ Association of America and National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

CROSKEY, Acting P.J.

This case requires us to consider the impact and implications of the California Supreme Court's opinion in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 325, 257 P.3d 1130 ( Howell ). As in Howell, the medical providers who treated plaintiffs in this case accepted, pursuant to prior agreements, less than the full amount of their medical billings as payment in full for their services. We must determine the admissibility in evidence of the full amount of an injured plaintiff's medical billings not only with respect to damages for past medical expenses, but also with respect to future medical expenses and noneconomic damages.

John Corenbaum and Charles Carter (Carter) suffered injuries when a vehicle driven by Dwight Eric Lampkin collided with a taxicab in which they were passengers. Lampkin was convicted of fleeing the scene of an injury accident (Veh.Code, § 20001, subd. (a)), but was not found guilty on another count for driving under the influence ( id., § 23153, subd. (a)). Corenbaum, Carter and Daniella Carter then filed two civil actions against Lampkin, which were later consolidated. After a trial, the jury found that Corenbaum and Carter, respectively, suffered approximately $1.8 million and $1.4 million in compensatory damages, and that Daniella Carter suffered $75,000 in damages for loss of consortium. The jury also awarded Corenbaum and Carter $20,000 each in punitive damages. Lampkin appeals the separate judgments entered in favor of Corenbaum and Carter. Plaintiffs filed their own appeal from the denial of their motion for an attorney fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4 (section 1021.4).

Lampkin contends the trial court erred by admitting (1) evidence of the full amounts billed for plaintiffs' medical care, rather than the amounts actually paid and accepted as full payment by plaintiffs' medical providers, and (2) evidence of his prior arrest for driving under the influence. He also contends Carter is not entitled to an award of punitive damages because he did not seek punitive damages in his complaint, and the amount of punitive damages awarded to both Corenbaum and Carter is excessive relative to his ability to pay. We conclude that evidence of the full amounts billed for plaintiffs' medical care was not relevant to the amount of damages for past medical services, damages for their future medical care or noneconomic damages. Because plaintiffs have not shown that evidence of the full amounts of their medical bills was relevant to any other issue, the admission of such evidence was error. We reject Lampkin's challenges to the punitive damage awards. We therefore will reverse, in part, the judgments in favor of Corenbaum and Carter and remand the matter for a new trial limited to the issue of compensatory damages.

In their appeal, plaintiffs contend the trial court erroneously held that section 1021.4, which authorizes an attorney fee award to the prevailing plaintiff “[i]n an action for damages against a defendant based upon that defendant's commission of a felony offense for which that defendant has been convicted,” does not authorize a fee award in these circumstances. We conclude that the court properly held that this action is not based on the felony offense for which Lampkin was convicted. We therefore will affirm the order denying a fee award.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Plaintiffs' Injuries and Lampkin's Arrest and Conviction

Corenbaum and Carter were passengers in a taxicab traveling east on Broadway in downtown Long Beach at approximately 1:30 a.m. on April 5, 2008, when a Lexus automobile traveling south on Atlantic Avenue collided with the taxicab in the intersection of those two streets. A witness in the vehicle immediately behind the taxicab testified that the Lexus ran the red light traveling at a speed of approximately 50 to 70 miles per hour. The posted speed limit on Atlantic Avenue was 25 miles per hour. Both vehicles involved in the collision came to a rest, and the driver of the Lexus fled on foot. Corenbaum and Carter suffered serious injuries.

Lampkin was one of two registered owners of the Lexus at the time of the collision. He had spent the evening of April 4, 2008, eating dinner with friends at a restaurant and nightclub in downtown Long Beach. He consumed copious amounts of alcohol that evening. Security guards asked him to leave the restaurant and escorted him out at approximately 11:30 p.m. His companions left as well, and the group walked to a bar nearby. While the group was walking to the bar, Lampkin stumbled and fell to the ground. He later separated from the group, walked away from the others and fell a second time.

Nicolle Topp was one of several friends who were with Lampkin on the evening of April 4, 2008. After leaving the bar, several of them went to Topp's condominium a few blocks away. Lampkin arrived later, at approximately 2:15 a.m., apparently still intoxicated. He fell asleep on the floor. After he awakened in the morning he stated that his keys, wallet, cell phone and jacket were missing. Lampkin and Topp searched for those items where Lampkin said he might have left them, but found nothing, and then went to the parking garage near the restaurant where he said he had parked his Lexus, but did not find his car there. Lampkin called the police and reported his car stolen.

The police interviewed Lampkin that morning and arrested him. A jury found him guilty of fleeing the scene of an injury accident (Veh.Code, § 20001, subd. (a)), a felony, and fleeing the scene of an accident causing property damage ( id., § 20002, subd. (b)), a misdemeanor, in January 2009. Another count for driving under the influence (Veh.Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) apparently was dismissed because the People exceeded the statutory time to bring the case to trial. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and ordered to pay $271,335 in restitution fines (Pen.Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)).

2. Proceedings Before Trial

Corenbaum filed a complaint against Lampkin and others in February 2010 and filed a first amended complaint in August 2010 alleging counts against Lampkin for negligence and gross negligence, and seeking punitive damages. Charles and Daniella Carter, husband and wife, filed a complaint against Lampkin and others in March 2010 alleging counts against Lampkin for negligence and loss of consortium. The two actions were consolidated before trial.

Lampkin filed a motion in limine before trial to exclude any evidence of his arrest and conviction of driving under the influence arising from a prior incident that occurred on December 23, 2007. He argued that such evidence was relevant only to his character and was inadmissible to show his lack of credibility, pursuant to Evidence Code section 787. He also argued that the evidence should be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because his conviction for that offense did not occur until after the incident in this case. The trial...