Plaintiff's truck-driver employee disappeared

Appeal from a jury verdict and post-trial motions from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), entering judgment in plaintiff's favor against defendant in an action brought pursuant to, inter alia, Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03.

Plaintiff's truck-driver employee disappeared while making delivery, and later, the tractor in which he drove was discovered on fire; the trailer and its cargo were missing. Plaintiff reported the loss to its insurer, defendant, who denied the claim with respect to the trailer on the basis that plaintiff had not met its burden of establishing the trailer had been stolen by a third party so as to bring the claim within the insuring clause of the policy. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging, inter alia, violations of Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03. After a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor, defendants appealed. The san diego employment lawyers will help you in all business matters.

The issue was whether the non-contractual claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court affirmed the jury verdict, holding that the statute of limitations with respect to the statutory violation was three years; moreover, substantial evidence supported the lower court's jury instructions.

The judgment was affirmed because plaintiff's cause of action under the California Insurance Code was a liability created by statute, and was therefore governed by a three-year period of limitations.

Petitioner, a county transportation authority, sought a writ of mandate after the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) denied its motion to strike respondent passenger's claim for recovery of the statutory penalty of $ 25,000 specified in the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.

A bus driver made a series of taunting, derogatory, and homophobic remarks directed at the passenger. As the passenger began to exit the bus, the driver gestured to blow the passenger a kiss in a deliberately humiliating and demeaning fashion. The passenger slapped the driver on the way out of the bus. The driver, who was much larger than the passenger, responded by beating the passenger severely. The court held that Cal. Civ. Code § 52(b)(2) established a separate remedial category that was distinct from the exemplary damages provided for in § 52(b)(1). Section 52 was not solely punitive but served to advance the legislature's intent, to encourage and aid private parties to help in enforcing the civil rights laws by bringing civil suits against perpetrators of hate crimes. The civil penalty provided a minimum compensatory recovery, even in those cases where the plaintiff could show little or no actual damages. Because the civil penalty was not imposed primarily for punishment, Cal. Gov't Code § 818 did not provide the transportation authority with immunity from liability.

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandate.