Appellant oil company

Posted by Saim Khan on April 4th, 2021

Appellant oil company sought review from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) which entered judgment in favor of appellee homeowners in appellees' actions for defective pipes used in the construction of the plumbing systems in appellees' homes even though the pipes did not leak or otherwise fail. Appellant rubber company challenged the trial court's award of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1032 costs to appellees.

Appellant oil company challenged a trial court decision that entered judgment, after a jury trial, in favor of appellee homeowners' negligence action surrounding defective pipes used in the construction of plumbing systems in appellees' homes. Appellant rubber company challenged the trial court's award of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1032 costs to appellees. The court reversed the judgments against appellant oil company and affirmed the trial court order awarding appellees § 1032 cost against appellant rubber company. For the details of labor law Los Angeles, hire an attorney who knows all about labor law.

 Appellees who owned homes without leaks did not suffer any damage giving rise to a cognizable action for negligence. Appellees' "damage" consisting of degradation and "micro-cracking" of appellees' plumbing systems did not amount to cognizable damages to support appellees' negligence cause of action. Economic loss alone could not support appellees' tort cause of action. The trial court did not err by finding that appellees were entitled to § 1032 costs against appellant rubber company. Appellees were prevailing parties under § 1032 because the jury found appellant rubber company strictly liable. Appellees prevailed on the issues of liability and damages.

The court reversed a trial court judgment that found appellant oil company liable in appellee homeowners' action surrounding defective pipes and affirmed the trial court's awarding of costs in favor of appellees against appellant rubber company. Appellees were unable to recover from appellant oil company because the pipes did not leak or fail. Appellees, as prevailing parties, were entitled to costs against appellant rubber company.

Plaintiffs appealed from the Superior Court of Sutter County (California), which entered summary judgment requiring plaintiffs to reimburse defendant insurance company for medical payments received by plaintiffs pursuant to the insurance policy. Defendant appealed that portions of the judgment which required it to pay a pro rata share of attorney fees incurred by plaintiffs in obtaining the recovery out of which the reimbursement was required.

Plaintiff injured parties recovered damages against a tortfeasor after receiving medical payments from defendant insurer under various insurance policies. The policies contained "subrogation" provisions which indicated that defendant insurer was subrogated to the extent of payments made to the insured as to any recovery received by the insured from a third party. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that the subrogation provisions were valid and that defendant was entitled to be reimbursed for medical payments it made. However, that defendant insurer's recovery should be reduced by a pro rata portion of the attorney's fees that plaintiffs incurred to obtain the recovery from the third party. Both parties appealed and the court affirmed the judgment as entered. The subrogation provisions applied only to proceeds actually received and did not attempt to assign a cause of action for personal injuries, which would violate public policy. The court applied the "common fund" theory in holding that defendant insurer would be unjustly enriched if it did not contribute a pro rata portion of its recovery to the plaintiff's attorney fees.

The court affirmed the judgment.