Procedural Posture
On Sale
$0.00
$0.00
Plaintiffs, automobile loan borrowers, filed class action alleging contractual breach and unfair business practices by defendant, automobile finance company, in connection with its practice of buying collateral protection insurance on financed cars. The finance company pursued two interlocutory appeals and then appealed from judgment and postjudgment orders subsequently entered by the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California.
Overview
The appellants had advocates that were small business attorney San Diego. The standard conditional sales agreements accepted by defendant finance company provided that borrowers who failed to maintain physical damage insurance on financed vehicles would be charged the costs incurred by the finance company in its purchase of collateral protection insurance (CPI). Borrowers who subsequently purchased their own insurance were refunded or credited unearned CPI premiums by the finance company according to an accelerated schedule rather than a pro rata schedule. The appellate court found that the accelerated method for computing earned premiums was not objectively reasonable, that it violated borrower's reasonable expectation that a pro rata-by-time refund method would be used, and that it breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Applying a comparative approach rather than a net monetary recovery standard, the court concluded that the borrowers, as a collective group, obtained greater relief on the contract action than the finance company, and were entitled to attorney's fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. The finance company was not entitled to recover the costs of a report it had prepared for an earlier unsuccessful appeal.
Outcome
The court affirmed the orders of the superior court which denied the finance company's post trial motions to vacate the judgment and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It also affirmed the order for attorney fees and costs.
Procedural Posture
Defendants, market owner and his agent, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which found in favor of plaintiff publisher and distributor in his action for breach of contract and awarded him $ 4,000 in damages.
Overview
Defendants, market owner and his agent, entered into two contracts with plaintiff publisher and distributor. Defendants cancelled both contracts shortly after executing them. After cancelling the agreements, defendants employed plaintiff's distributing employees. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff and awarded $ 4,000 in damages. Defendants contended that the damage award could be made only in a tort action and had no place in litigation for a breach of contract. The court affirmed the damage award, finding that the damage assessment could not be sustained as compensation for the breach of either contract, but that the award could be sustained based on defendants' tortious interference with plaintiff's established business. The court held that as the record established that the tort damage to plaintiff was made possible solely by reason of the parties' entry into the contractual arrangement of employment in the first instance, plaintiff had a practical foundation for seeking complete recompense for his combined injuries in one action. The court held that the damage award was commensurate with the injuries.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment against defendant market owner because he was guilty of tortious interference, which warranted the damages award, and reversed the judgment against defendant agent because he acted as an agent for defendant market owner and therefore was not liable.
Overview
The appellants had advocates that were small business attorney San Diego. The standard conditional sales agreements accepted by defendant finance company provided that borrowers who failed to maintain physical damage insurance on financed vehicles would be charged the costs incurred by the finance company in its purchase of collateral protection insurance (CPI). Borrowers who subsequently purchased their own insurance were refunded or credited unearned CPI premiums by the finance company according to an accelerated schedule rather than a pro rata schedule. The appellate court found that the accelerated method for computing earned premiums was not objectively reasonable, that it violated borrower's reasonable expectation that a pro rata-by-time refund method would be used, and that it breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Applying a comparative approach rather than a net monetary recovery standard, the court concluded that the borrowers, as a collective group, obtained greater relief on the contract action than the finance company, and were entitled to attorney's fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717. The finance company was not entitled to recover the costs of a report it had prepared for an earlier unsuccessful appeal.
Outcome
The court affirmed the orders of the superior court which denied the finance company's post trial motions to vacate the judgment and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It also affirmed the order for attorney fees and costs.
Procedural Posture
Defendants, market owner and his agent, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which found in favor of plaintiff publisher and distributor in his action for breach of contract and awarded him $ 4,000 in damages.
Overview
Defendants, market owner and his agent, entered into two contracts with plaintiff publisher and distributor. Defendants cancelled both contracts shortly after executing them. After cancelling the agreements, defendants employed plaintiff's distributing employees. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff and awarded $ 4,000 in damages. Defendants contended that the damage award could be made only in a tort action and had no place in litigation for a breach of contract. The court affirmed the damage award, finding that the damage assessment could not be sustained as compensation for the breach of either contract, but that the award could be sustained based on defendants' tortious interference with plaintiff's established business. The court held that as the record established that the tort damage to plaintiff was made possible solely by reason of the parties' entry into the contractual arrangement of employment in the first instance, plaintiff had a practical foundation for seeking complete recompense for his combined injuries in one action. The court held that the damage award was commensurate with the injuries.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment against defendant market owner because he was guilty of tortious interference, which warranted the damages award, and reversed the judgment against defendant agent because he acted as an agent for defendant market owner and therefore was not liable.