Gamliel v. Litman
Filed 10/13/10 Gamliel v. Litman 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
ALON GAMLIEL et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
SCOTT N. LITMAN,
Defendant and Respondent.
B220275
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC400645)
APPEAL from an order and judgment
of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. Elizabeth Allen White, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Brentwood
Legal Services and Steven L. Zelig for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Jampol
Zimet, Marc J. Zimet and Marcus Dong for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________
Plaintiffs and appellants Alon Gamliel, Caryn Gamliel,
Tamir Dayan, and Stella Pakler appeal from an order sustaining defendant and
respondent Scott N. Litman's (Litman) demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended
complaint (SAC) without leave to amend.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We agree with plaintiffs that they properly pled a cause of action for
negligence relative to policy procurement and servicing against Litman even
though he was a fully disclosed agent of the insurer. The SAC adequately alleges that Litman made
misrepresentations regarding the insurance coverage. Accordingly, the trial
court's order sustaining Litman's demurrer to the tenth cause of action is reversed.
In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's
order.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Factual Background
â€
| Description | Plaintiffs and appellants Alon Gamliel, Caryn Gamliel, Tamir Dayan, and Stella Pakler appeal from an order sustaining defendant and respondent Scott N. Litman's (Litman) demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint (SAC) without leave to amend. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We agree with plaintiffs that they properly pled a cause of action for negligence relative to policy procurement and servicing against Litman even though he was a fully disclosed agent of the insurer. The SAC adequately alleges that Litman made misrepresentations regarding the insurance coverage. Accordingly, the trial court's order sustaining Litman's demurrer to the tenth cause of action is reversed. In all other respects, Court affirm the trial court's order. |
| Rating |
