Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 16 June 1982
• Citation: 133 Cal.App.3d 879,184 Cal.Rptr. 184
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: FREMONT INDEMNITY CO., A California Corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of California, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Robert L. HENDRICKS, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 64856.

Page 184

184 Cal.Rptr. 184

133 Cal.App.3d 879

FREMONT INDEMNITY CO., A California Corporation, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of California, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent Robert L. HENDRICKS, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 64856.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

June 16, 1982.

Hearing Denied Aug. 18, 1982.

Strantz & Fine and Bonnie Fine, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent court.

Shernoff, Lipsky & Blickenstaff and Louis G. Fazzi, Claremont, for real party in interest.

BEACH, Associate Justice.

NATURE OF PROCEEDING:

Petition for writs of prohibition and mandate to superior court after the court overruled the demurrer of defendant Fremont Indemnity Company, an insurance carrier, to an action brought by injured worker. We issued an alternative writ.

The present action involves a matter of pleading in the superior court. Although generally matters of pleading are best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, we entertained and accepted this petition because the trial court erred in an important respect concerning jurisdiction between the superior court and the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) in workers compensation matters. The preferred policy is to repose in the WCAB as much as possible resolution of problems and alleged claims arising out of worker's compensation matters.

DISCUSSION:

In Everfield v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 15, 171 Cal.Rptr. 164, we held that a complaint, almost identical in its material allegations to that at bench, stated no cause of action. In Everfield, as at bench, an injured worker made application before the WCAB and received worker's disability benefits from his employer through its insurance carrier. The employee Everfield subsequently brought action in the superior court against the insurance carrier alleging consistent delay in payments of compensation, arbitrary reduction of compensation, intentional disregard by insurance carrier of the WCAB's subpoena order, all of which acts it was alleged were on the part of the insurance company resulting in physical and emotional suffering to the employee. The complaint similarly, as at bench, contained allegations that all of the acts of respondent were done intentionally, deceitfully, fraudulently and in bad faith with intent to injure plaintiff, and whereby he was seeking $20 million in damages.

At bench plaintiff seeks to maintain the same type of action in the superior court. Here, too, plaintiff alleges the same kind of conduct by three separate purported causes of action consisting of (1) breach of duty of fair dealing in good faith, (2) severe infliction of emotional distress, and (3) breach of statutory duties. There is no material difference between the complaint at bench and that discussed and presented in Everfield. At bench, plaintiff asserts...