Allstate Insurance Company v. Richard Thacher et al
| Allstate Insurance Company |
| Richard Thacher, Valerie Ann Thacher and Guadalupe Trujillo |
| Allstate Insurance Company |
| Richard Thacher, Valerie Ann Thacher and Guadalupe Trujillo |
| 2:2008cv03326 |
| September 18, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Ronald S.W. Lew |
| Fernando M. Olguin |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
240
ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. The Court reasons that the interests of judicial economy mandate that the Court VACATE its November 23, 2009 Order 196 granting both Plaintiffs Motion for a New Trial on the sole issue of damages as well as Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. The Court instead reinstates the September 18, 2009 Judgment 173 , and that Judgment will now serve as the Final Judgment that may be reviewed upon appeal. (Refer to attached docuemnt for details.) (lom)
|
|
Filing
237
ORDER by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. As such, in the interests of judicial economy, the Court informs the parties that it is now contemplating vacating its November 23, 2009 Order 196 granting Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial on the sole issue of damages as well as the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. The Court would instead reinstate the September 18, 2009 Judgment 173 , and that Judgment would then serve as a final judgment that may be reviewed upon appeal. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to submit their position papers with respect to the Court's position stated in this Order on or before May 31, 2011. (lom)
|
|
Filing
173
JUDGMENT RE DECLARATORY RELIEF, BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS, AND SECTION 11580 CLAIM by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew: JUDGEMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED FOR Defendants and Counterclaimants Richard Thacher, Valerie Thacher, and Guadalupe Trujillo as set forth below: the Court finds that Allstate breached the CPL Policy and is liable for the arbitration judgment award under Cal. Ins. Code Section 11580. Therefore, judgment is hereby entered in the following amounts: (1) Allstate owes to Defendant Thacher $18 ,399.59, plus 10% interest per annum, for amounts expended in defense of the Trujillo claim. (2) Allstate owes $100,000 (the CPL Policy limit) to Defendant Trujillo on the Section 11580 claim, plus interest at 10% per annum. (3) The in terest shall be calculated as having begun accruing as of 7/14/2006. (4) The Court denies Defendant's request to award $100,000 to the Thachers for breach of the CPL Policy. The insureds, Valerie and Richard Thacher, had no duty to cooperat e or provide additional notice or information and were entitled to enter into the arbitration agreement, to accept the covenant not to execute, to stipulate to liability and to agree to arbitrate the amount of damages. Judgment is hereby entered in t he following amount: (1) Allstate owes $415,093.78 to Defendant Trujillo on the Section 11580 claim, plus interest at 10% per annum. The Court also finds that Allstate did not breach the Umbrella Policy. The Court finds that Allstate's equitable defenses fail. The Court denies Defendants' request for a jury trial on bad faith. Notwithstanding the jury's findings, the Court finds that its ruling dismissing these claims on Summary Judgment was the appropriate disposition for Defendants' bad faith claims. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
