BELL v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

BELL v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE Filed 3/15/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="319" valign="top"> ROSE BELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant and Respondent. </td> <td width="319" valign="top"> A110311 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 774013-0) </td> </tr> </table> This fifth appeal in a complex <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">class action</a> concerns the propriety of postjudgment orders amending a plan of distribution and denying a motion for additional postjudgment interest. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are claims representatives of Farmers Insurance Exchange (hereafter FIE), seeking unpaid overtime compensation under Labor Code section 1194. In an earlier appeal, Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805, we affirmed the trial court's ruling that their employee class was subject to the overtime regulations of the Industrial Welfare Commission. The matter went to a jury trial. On July 10, 2001, the jury returned a special verdict finding that unpaid time-and-a-half overtime compensation owed to the class was $88,798,871.12 and unpaid double-time compensation was $1,210,337. The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict, which awarded plaintiffs prejudgment interest of 10 percent and provided for a plan of distribution of the damages. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment in most respects, reversing only the <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">judgment for unpaid double-time compensation</a> and directing that the plan of distribution be modified in certain minor respects. (Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 715.) In a further appeal, we upheld the trial court's award of prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent. (Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1138.) On September 3, 2004, following remand of the case, the trial court entered an order re implementation of the judgment, which required FIE to pay the amount of the judgment into a damages fund consisting of an interest-bearing escrow account held in the names of class counsel and a court-appointed claims administrator.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The order found that the unpaid balance owing under the judgment as of August 16, 2004, was $158,663,784.85, plus daily postjudgment interest. This sum was to â€