Appellant law firm sought review of a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), that granted summary judgment to appellee insurance company finding that appellee did not have to cover losses because of its contract limitations defense.
Table of Contents
Overview
Appellant law firm filed a complaint against appellee insurance company. The complaint alleged that appellant had suffered loss as a result of an earthquake, that claim on appellant’s contract of insurance with appellee insurance company had been timely made, and that appellee had wrongly refused to pay. Appellee filed its answer raising a contract limitations affirmative defense. Appellee filed summary judgment motion. Appellant filed its opposition to motion arguing that appellee failed to advise appellant of the 12-month limit. Appellant submitted in evidence Cal. Code Regs. title 10, §§ 2695.1 and 2695.4. These sections comprised portions of the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations. Court granted summary judgment to appellee, and appellant sought review. Appellant’s major contention was that appellee should be estopped from relying on the contract limitations defense, because appellee failed to disclose the short limitations period to appellant despite the requirement of § 2695.4 that required disclosure of time limits. Court reversed judgment. The regulation imposed on appellee an unmistakable duty to advise its claimant insureds of applicable claim time limits.
Outcome
The defense party and their business lawyers presented evidence to jurors. Court reversed judgment that granted summary judgment to appellee insurance company and remanded matter because appellee insurance company had an obligation under insurance regulations to inform appellant law firm of time limit for filing an action on the policy.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff employee sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant corporation and its employees in plaintiff’s action for wrongful termination brought after plaintiff was terminated for making racially and sexually derogatory remarks to a trainee.
Overview
Plaintiff employee worked as a salesperson for defendant corporation and its employees. Plaintiff was terminated for making racially and sexually derogatory remarks to a trainee. Plaintiff then filed suit for wrongful termination, conspiracy to wrongfully discharge, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, conspiracy to intentionally inflict emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and plaintiff challenged that decision. The court affirmed and held that the case involved a simple breach of employment contract, and that the terms of the agreement between the parties created a valid express contract under which plaintiff was an at-will employee. The court held that plaintiff failed to substantiate any of his claims and that the facts presented no conflict between the law of the jurisdiction chosen by the parties and that of the forum state, and therefore the express at-will employment contract was enforceable even if plaintiff was terminated without cause.
Outcome
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of defendant corporation and its employees and held that the terms of the agreement between plaintiff employee and defendants created a valid express contract under which plaintiff was an at-will employee and that plaintiff failed to substantiate a claim for wrongful discharge.