Evidence — continued from Page 30
The importance of Colonial Life discovery to punitive-damages recovery after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm v. Campbell and The California Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. Ford Motor Company
Following State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co. v. Campbell, et. al. (2003) 538 U.S. 408 [123 S.Ct. 1513], and the California Supreme Court’s later decision in Johnson v. Ford Motor Company (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 401], pattern-and- practice evidence is paramount in obtain- ing and keeping punitive-damage awards. In Campbell, State Farm’s insured,
Campbell, was driving on a two-lane high- way and attempted to pass six vans. Ospital
was driving in the opposite direction. Ospital swerved to avoid Campbell and crashed into an automobile driven by Slusher. The accident killed Ospital and disabled Slusher. Ospital’s successors and Slusher (collectively “accident victims”) filed a tort and wrongful death action against Campbell and his wife. Although investiga- tors determined that Campbell caused the crash, State Farm contested liability. State Farm then refused the accident victims’ offer to settle the case for the $50,000 policy limit and took the case to trial. State Farm assured the Campbells that Campbell did not cause the accident, that the Campbells’ assets were safe, and that the Campbells did not need separate counsel. The jury determined that Campbell caused the accident and a judgment was
LEMON LAW
We represent consumers of defective vehicles under the California Lemon Law. We have successfully completed over a thousand cases against Ford, GM, Chrysler and others. Most cases handled on a contingency.
Multiple Repairs Odometer Rollbacks Salvaged Title Dealership Fraud Prior Daily Rentals
Automobiles, Trucks, Motorcycles, Boats, Motor Homes, RVs
AFFORDABLE, RESULT-DRIVEN DISPUTE RESOLUTION
entered for roughly $185,000. State Farm initially refused to cover the $135,000 liabili- ty above the $50,000 policy limit, and State Farm refused to post a bond to allow Campbell to appeal the judgment. While the case was on appeal, the Campbells settled with the accident victims. In exchange for the accident victims’ agreement to not satisfy their judgment against the Campbells, the Campbells agreed to file a bad-faith action against State Farm and assign 90 percent of any recovery to the accident victims. After the Campbells lost the appeal, State Farm paid the entire judgment. The Campbells then filed a bad-faith
action against State Farm. At trial, the jury determined that State Farm’s refusal to set- tle was unreasonable as there was a substan- tial likelihood of an excess verdict against the Campbells. The Campbells introduced evidence that State Farm took their case to trial as a result of a nationwide scheme to limit claims payments. The scheme involved State Farm’s conduct in numerous states for more than 20 years. State Farm moved to exclude the evidence, but the trial court admitted the evidence on the ground that it was relevant to whether State Farm’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to justify punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court
Fred Rucker, Esq.
Mediations, Arbitrations and Discovery References
100’s of Successful Mediations
32 Years of Trial Experience in Complex Disputes Representing Both Plaintiff s and Defendants
Phone: 310.203.9330 Fax: 310.203.9332
Referral Fees Paid Pursuant to State Bar Rules 661.222.9929 818.904.6800
32— The Advocate Magazine JUNE 2011
info@pacifi
c-dispute-resolution.com www.pacifi
c-dispute-resolution.com
reaffirmed that the degree of reprehensibility of an insurer’s conduct is the most crucial factor in evaluating a punitive-damages award against an insurer. To consider rep- rehensibility, a court must consider fac- tors including whether the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolat- ed incident, and whether the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit or simply an accident. Repeated misconduct is more reprehensible than a single instance of misconduct as “a recidi- vist may be punished more severely than a first offender.” The Supreme Court emphasized that
although “evidence of other acts [towards other insureds] need not be identical to have relevance in the calculation of puni- tive damages,” it must have some nexus to plaintiffs’ claims. In Campbell, instead of focusing on the type of conduct that damaged the Campbells, the Campbells
See Evidence, Page 34
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96