Essex
Filed 10/14/10 Essex
Ins. v. Professional Building Contractors CA2/2
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
TWO
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent,
v.
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
CONTRACTORS, INC.,
Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.
B221970
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC353152)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. James C.
Chalfant, Judge, Luis A. Lavin, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Stanzler
Law Group, Jordan S. Stanzler and Jeffrey M. Curtiss for Defendant,
Cross-complainant and Appellant.
LeClairRyan,
Peter M. Hart and Matthew R. Halloran for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and
Respondent.
*
* * * * *
This is the
third appeal that has arisen from a jury verdict in favor of defendant,
cross-complainant and appellant Professional Building Contractors, Inc. (PBC)
on its cross-complaint for bad faith against plaintiff, cross-defendant and
respondent Essex Insurance Company (Essex). Previously, we affirmed an order
conditionally granting Essex's motion for new trial on the issue of
punitive damages, in which the trial court ruled it would deny the motion if
PBC consented to a remittitur of punitive damages in an amount equal to the
compensatory damages award. Thereafter,
we affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's rulings on several
posttrial motions brought by PBC. This
time, PBC appeals from the punitive damages judgment ultimately entered by the
trial court on the ground that the court miscalculated the amount of punitive
damages by awarding a figure equal to the compensatory
damages amount as reduced to account for a third-party settlement.
We
reverse. The one-to-one ratio between
punitive and compensatory damages should have been calculated using the jury's
compensatory damages award. The amount
of the jury's compensatory damages award was not altered by a setoff for a
third-party settlement.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October
2007, a jury awarded PBC $687,264.22 in compensatory damages and $2.5 million
in punitive damages on its cross-complaint against Essex.[1] In January 2008, the trial court
conditionally granted Essex's motion for a new trial, ruling that â€
| Description | This is the third appeal that has arisen from a jury verdict in favor of defendant, cross-complainant and appellant Professional Building Contractors, Inc. (PBC) on its cross-complaint for bad faith against plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent Essex Insurance Company (Essex). Previously, we affirmed an order conditionally granting Essex's motion for new trial on the issue of punitive damages, in which the trial court ruled it would deny the motion if PBC consented to a remittitur of punitive damages in an amount equal to the compensatory damages award. Thereafter, we affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's rulings on several posttrial motions brought by PBC. This time, PBC appeals from the punitive damages judgment ultimately entered by the trial court on the ground that the court miscalculated the amount of punitive damages by awarding a figure equal to the compensatory damages amount as reduced to account for a third-party settlement. Court reverse. The one to one ratio between punitive and compensatory damages should have been calculated using the jury's compensatory damages award. The amount of the jury's compensatory damages award was not altered by a setoff for a third-party settlement. |
| Rating |
