Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in a breach of contract action arising out of a loan.
Table of Contents
Overview
Defendants fraudulently induced plaintiffs to make a loan based on an inflated appraisal and false information. Plaintiffs sold the loan to a mortgage company. The borrowers defaulted, the mortgage company foreclosed, and made a successful full credit bid at the trustee’s sale. Pursuant to their contract, the mortgage company then required plaintiffs to make it whole. In exchange for repaying the mortgage company, plaintiffs received the foreclosed property, which it sold at a loss. Plaintiffs sued defendants to recoup its losses. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The appellate court reversed. The general rule where a full credit bid operated as an admission the bidding lender of the property’s value, did not preclude a claim the repurchasing lender that it suffered damages from the compelled repurchase as a consequence of the defendants’ misrepresentation or breach. The parties were counseled a corporate attorneys for the civil litigation.
Outcome
The judgment was reversed.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff appealed an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), that granted judgment on the pleadings to defendant insurer in plaintiff’s action to recover for the insurer’s alleged breach of its good faith duty to settle.
Overview
Plaintiff sued the insured for the wrongful death of her son. Defendant insurer rejected plaintiff’s settlement demands. Plaintiff received a verdict against the insured, but on a motion for new trial, accepted a reduction in judgment. Plaintiff then filed suit against defendant, alleging that defendant breached its duty of good faith to its insured having failed to settle within the policy limits. Plaintiff sought to recover under Cal. Ins. Code § 11580 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 720. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. On appeal, the court affirmed. Defendant’s duty to settle ran to the insured, not to plaintiff, and the insured did not assign his cause of action to plaintiff.
Outcome
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision that granted judgment on the pleadings to defendant insurer on the ground that the insured did not assign to plaintiff his cause of action for insurer’s breach of its duty to settle.
