Lambert v. Carneghi
Decision Date | 11 January 2008 |
Docket Number | No. A113388.,A113388. |
Citation | 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 626,158 Cal.App.4th 1120 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Winston LAMBERT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Chris CARNEGHI et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Moody & Hill, E. Craig Moody, San Francisco, for Appellants.
Archer Norris, Jon P. Tonsing, W. Eric Blumhardt, Walnut Creek, Allen & Bender, APC, Michael B. Allen, San Mateo, Jonathan D. Bishop; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Michael K. Johnson, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents.
Appellants Winston and Elaine Lambert sued respondents Chris Carneghi and Robert Dailey for negligence over their alleged failure to adequately advance their position in a fire insurance appraisal proceeding pursuant to Insurance Code section 2071 (section 2071). The trial court sustained respondents' demurrers, and appellants appealed from the subsequent judgments. We conclude that an appraisal proceeding pursuant to section 2071 is an arbitration, and that respondent Carneghi was immune from suit over his role as an appraiser., However, we find that the litigation privilege (Civ.Code, § 47, subd. (b)) does not protect respondent Dailey from suit over his role as an expert hired by appellants. We therefore affirm the trial court's order sustaining respondent Carneghi's demurrer, but reverse the trial court's order sustaining Dailey's demurrer.
Factual And Procedural
(Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638, 29 Cal. Rptr.2d 152, 871 P.2d 204.) We cannot, and do not, consider the declaration of respondent Dailey that was submitted to the trial court in connection with his demurrer, because the limited role of the demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994, 11 Cal.Rptr .3d 45.)
Appellants owned a home in Los Altos Hills that was totally destroyed by an accidental fire in March 1995. The residence was insured by a policy issued by Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE), which determined that the policy fully covered the fire damage. Appellants' policy provided "guaranteed replacement cost coverage," as well as a "`building ordinance or law coverage' endorsement, which provided that FIE would also pay the full replacement cost to replace or repair the Lamberts' residence in conformity with applicable laws, processes and regulations respecting the premises." (Italics omitted.) FIE hired two appraisers, and provided appellants with checks based on the appraisers' reports. Appellants accepted the checks with the understanding that they represented a deposit until a determination of the full replacement cost of their residence.
It took approximately four years for appellants to obtain the necessary permits to replace their home. During this time, appellants incurred "a very substantial amount of rent and other `soft costs' in architectural, legal, surveying, engineering consulting fees, town fees and interest expenses, etc." FIE and appellants were unable to agree on the replacement cost value to rebuild appellants' entire home. Appellants therefore invoked their right to appraisal in accordance with the terms of their insurance policy.
Appellants did not attach a copy of their FIE insurance policy to their complaint; however, the parties agree that FIE was required under California's Insurance Code to include the following provision in its fire policy regarding appraisals:2 (Italics omitted.) (Ins.Code, §§ 2071, 2070.)
Appellants hired attorneys to represent them in the appraisal process. One of the attorneys hired respondent Dailey as an expert "to define, describe and estimate the replacement cost" of appellants' home for the appraisal process. (Original italics.) Appellants also hired respondent Carneghi as their appraiser, "to provide appraisal services in connection with the appraisal at issue, essentially to determine replacement cost and to be their advocate in the appraisal process and to make sure those relevant to the appraisal understood the meaning and application of the term replacement cost and to convince those involved in the appraisal of the correctness of his valuation by supporting it with facts and logic." (Original italics.)
Appellants' attorneys selected a retired judge who had never conducted a replacement cost appraisal as an umpire. According to appellants, the umpire "demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding" of replacement costs at the beginning of the hearing on the appraisal. According to appellants' complaint, none of the people hired by appellants changed, or even adequately tried to change, the umpire's understanding, even though they had been hired to do so. They likewise failed throughout the appraisal hearing to clarify the meaning of the term "replacement cost." Because the people who appellants hired failed to adequately define the correct standard of replacement cost for the appraisal, appellants were not awarded proper replacement costs. Appellants allege they were damaged by at least $1.8 million.
Appellants sued respondents Carneghi and Dailey in connection with the allegedly flawed appraisal process.3 As amended, their complaint alleged a single cause of action for negligence against respondents. Respondents both demurred to the complaint. The trial court sustained both demurrers without leave to amend, and judgments were entered for respondents.4 This timely appeal followed.
Our standard of review is well established. (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171, quoting Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.)
In arguing that the trial court should sustain his demurrer without leave to amend, Carneghi argued below that the appraisal process mandated by the Insurance Code and described in appellant's complaint constituted an arbitration, and that he was entitled to arbitral immunity because his role as an appraiser was analogous to that of an arbitrator. In their opposition, appellants essentially conceded that the appraisal process in this case was a form of arbitration, referring to Carneghi as "a party appraiser, or arbitrator." Appellants argued that because. Carneghi was alleged to have played a role as a party-appointed advocate, he was not subject to arbitral immunity. The trial court stated at the hearing on the demurrer that Carneghi had prevailed, but left open the question whether it would grant appellants leave to amend. The court ultimately sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
Appellants' opening brief to this court raises a single argument, not raised below, that the appraisal process set forth in section 2071 is not an "arbitration." Having failed to raise this issue below, they have arguably waived it. (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 39, 46, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 60 [ ].)
Even assuming the argument was not waived, it clearly lacks merit. It is well settled that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marin Ass'n of Pub. Emps. v. Marin Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n
...Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach (1978) 21 Cal.3d 497, 504, fn. 2, 146 Cal.Rptr. 614, 579 P.2d 505 ; Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1128, fn. 4, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 626.) Even if the claim had been preserved for review, it would not require reversal. California has a statute go......
-
Powerdsine, Inc. v. Ami Semiconductor, Inc.
...that communications necessary "to achieve the objects of the litigation" are privileged). 90. See, e.g., Lambert v. Carneghi, 158 Cal. App.4th 1120, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 626, 641 n. 8 (2008) (citing Gootee v. Lightner, 224 Cal. App.3d 587, 274 Cal.Rptr. 697, 700-01 91. Def. Mem. at 14-15. 92. Bak......
-
Doan v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.
...agreement to include “agreements providing for valuations, appraisals and similar proceedings”]; Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1129–1130, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 626.) “Appraisal hearings are a form of arbitration and are generally subject to rules governing arbitration.” ( Kacha ......
-
Winters v. Jordan
...v. Accelerated Recovery Specialists, Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1087 (S.D. Cal. 2007); Lambert v. Carneghi, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1120, 1138, 70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 626, 639(Ct. App. 2008). Thus, although the privilege was originally enacted with reference to claims of defamation, "'the privilege is......
-
Selecting Your Expert
...a negligent expert from liability of the party who hired him or her. Lambert 1-63 sElEcting your ExpErt §170 v. Carneghi , (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1120, 70 Cal. Rptr.3d 626. In Lambert v. Carneghi , the court found that an agreement to conduct an appraisal contained in a fire insurance pol......
-
Chapter 3
...Rodriguez v. Blue Cross of California, 162 Cal. App.4th 330, 75 Cal. Rptr.3d 754 (Cal. App. 2008) (not enforced); Lambert v. Carneghi, 70 Cal. Rptr.3d 626 (Cal. App. 2008) (enforced); Medeiros v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. Rptr.3d 307 (Cal. App. 2007) (not enforced). Colorado: Rocha v. Financi......
-
Selecting Your Expert
...jurisdictions it does not protect a negligent expert from liability of the party who hired him or her. Lambert v. Carneghi , (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1120, 70 Cal. Rptr.3d 626. In Lambert v. Carneghi , the court found that an agreement to conduct an appraisal contained in a fire insurance p......
-
Selecting Your Expert
...jurisdictions it does not protect a negligent expert from liability of the party who hired him or her. Lambert v. Carneghi , (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1120, 70 Cal. Rptr.3d 626. In Lambert v. Carneghi , the court found that an agreement to conduct an appraisal contained in a fire insurance p......