Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss
Decision Date | 18 March 2003 |
Docket Number | No. B151730.,B151730. |
Citation | 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 777,107 Cal.App.4th 54 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | John Norman SHAFER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BERGER, KAHN, SHAFTON, MOSS, FIGLER, SIMON & GLADSTONE et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Hunt Ortmann Blasco Palffy & Rossell, Inc., Craig N. Rossell and Regan A. Molatore, Pasadena, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, Susan H. Handelman and Gregory K. Storey, Santa Clara, for Defendants and Respondents.
This appeal presents the question of whether an attorney, who is retained by an insurance company to provide coverage advice in a lawsuit against its insured, may be held liable to the plaintiff in that lawsuit for making a fraudulent statement about coverage. We answer that question in the affirmative because deceit undermines the administration of justice.
For purposes of our review, we must accept as true the following allegations of the complaint. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.) With that in mind, we rarely use "alleged" in discussing the factual assertions in the complaint.
John and June Shafer are homeowners in Los Angeles County. In the early 1990's, they contracted with Tri County Builders, a general contractor, to remodel their home and build an addition to it. Tri County Builders, a partnership, was run by Jay DeMay and Perry Hanstad. The construction contract apparently required that any disputes between the parties be resolved by binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA).
As a result of numerous problems with the construction, in December 1991, the Shafers filed a demand for arbitration against Tri County Builders, DeMay, and Hanstad. The demand set forth claims for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others, and sought an award of damages, including punitive damages. DeMay tendered the defense of the action to Truck Insurance Exchange, which had issued a comprehensive general liability policy to him doing business as Tri County Builders.1
By letter dated May 18, 1992, Truck agreed to defend Tri County Builders, De-May, and Hanstad, subject to a reservation of rights. The letter consisted of four single-spaced pages that quoted and discussed several provisions in the insurance policy. It pointed out that coverage was dependent upon an "occurrence," which, according to the letter, was defined in the policy as "an event, or a series of events . . . which results during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage, neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."
The letter continued: 2 3
In response to Truck's letter, DeMay requested that Truck pay for counsel of his own choosing. Because the Shafers' arbitration demand asserted claims of negligent and willful wrongdoing, DeMay was concerned that an attorney selected by Truck would have a conflict of interest given that a finding of liability based on willful acts would negate Truck's obligation to pay indemnity while a finding of negligence would entitle DeMay to indemnification. (See Civ.Code, § 2860; San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494 (Cumis).)
For advice on coverage issues, Truck retained Lance LaBelle, Esq., of Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone. On June 9, 1992, LaBelle discussed coverage with Chris Lundblad, an employee of Truck. On June 11, 1992, LaBelle sent Lundblad a confirming letter, stating:
LaBelle sent the superseding reservation of rights letter to DeMay's attorney on June 10, 1992. It consisted of 10 single-spaced pages that quoted and discussed the policy provisions as to which Truck reserved its rights. The letter did not define "occurrence" nor did it refer to Insurance Code section 533 or Civil Code section 1668. There was no reservation of rights as to willful or intentional acts, though coverage for punitive damages was expressly excluded. The letter stated in part: The letter to DeMay's attorney concluded:
The superseding reservation of rights letter, when read in context with the first reservation of rights letter and LaBelle's June 11, 1992 letter to Lundblad, implicitly acknowledged that, while an insurance policy cannot provide indemnity for willful acts (see Ins.Code, § 533), an insurer may agree to pay indemnity after an insured has committed a willful act. If the insurer so agrees, the insured (DeMay) is entitled to indemnification if he relies on that agreement to his detriment, for example by discharging his own counsel in order to be represented by counsel chosen by the insurer. (See Tomerlin v. Canadian Indemnity Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 638, 643-649, 39 Cal.Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571; Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 478, 506-511, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 142 [discussing Tomerlin]; Croskey et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Insurance Litigation (The Rutter Group 2002) ¶¶ 7:327, 7:745 to 7:751, pp. 7A-86.2, 7B-64.1 to 7B-64.3 [same].)
The arbitration commenced on March 1, 1993, before a three-member panel. There were 20 days of evidentiary hearings, one day of site inspection, and one day of closing arguments. The parties produced 20 witnesses and numerous exhibits.
On July 26, 1993, the panel unanimously found in favor of the Shafers, awarding them $153,732 in general damages, $85,166 in attorneys' fees and costs, $40,513 in pre-award interest, $31,891.31 to cover AAA administrative fees and the arbitrators' compensation, and $25,000 in punitive damages against DeMay, totaling $336,302.31.
In the arbitration award, which referred to Tri-County Builders, DeMay, and Hanstad collectively as "respondents," the arbitrators found that
The arbitrators also found that "[respondent DeMay committed a fraudulent act at the time he entered into the [Construction] Agreement, that he never intended to complete the project within the times repeatedly promised, and ignored the . . . Agreement with absolute impunity. Respondent DeMay repeatedly extracted payment of additional monies in advance of work performed while promising to complete the project with new extended completion dates. The Panel further finds that Respondent DeMay committed other acts of fraud. . . .
To continue reading
Request your trial-
John Fremont STEEL IV v. CITY of SAN DIEGO
...to determine whether the proposed conspiracy pleading is legally sufficient.” See Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone, 107 Cal.App.4th 54, 83, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 (2003). See also Pavicich v. Santucci, 85 Cal.App.4th 382, 394, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 125 (2000) (describ......
-
Barefield v. DPIC Companies, Inc., No. 31226 (VA 6/25/2004)
...bad faith claim in its second amended complaint. Tucson Airport, 918 P.2d at 1066. See also Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone, 107 Cal.App.4th 54, 78 (2003) ("[T]he litigation privilege does not shield LaBelle from liability for fraud."); Matsuura, 73 P.3d at ......
-
Howard v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co.
...satisfaction of the judgment up to the amount of the policy limits.' " ( Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 54, 68, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 ( Shafer v. Berger, Kahn ).) Among the elements that must be proven is that " 'the policy covers the r......
-
Favila v. Llp
...conspiring with client because attorney had a duty to plaintiff to not commit fraud]; Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 54, 84, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 [plaintiffs permitted to sue attorney for conspiring with insurance company to commit act......
-
CHAPTER 6
...whether a lawyer also owes a duty to their client’s opponent. Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Shafer, Figler, Simon & Gladstone 107 Cal. App. 4th 54, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) This appeal presents the question of whether an attorney, who is retained by an insurance c......
-
Insurance
...misrepresented coverage to a judgment creditor of the insured. Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 54; 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777. A broker acting on behalf of an applicant who knowingly submits a false application can be sued by the carrier ......
-
CHAPTER 6 DUTIES OF THE INSURED AND THE INSURER
...actions by an insurer include the actions of an insurer's lawyer. In Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone, 107 Cal. App. 4th 54, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003), the California Court of Appeal was presented with the question of whether an attorney, who......
-
Settlement Negotiation Ethics Under California's New Rules of Professional Conduct: Part One
...2015-192Select Cases Applicable to Settlement Negotiations Vega v. Jones, Day, 121 Cal. App. 4th 282 (2004) Shafer v. Berger, Kahn, 107 Cal. App. 4th 54 (2003) Cicone v. URS Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194 (1986) Segretti v. State Bar, 15 Cal. 3d 878 (1976) Scofield v. State Bar, 62 Cal. 2d 624......