legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Malibu Broadbeach v. State Farm General Ins,

Malibu Broadbeach v. State Farm General Ins,
03:22:2008



Malibu Broadbeach v. State Farm General Ins.



Filed 3/5/08  Malibu Broadbeach v. State Farm General Ins. CA2/7















NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS









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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN



MALIBU BROADBEACH, L.P.,



            Plaintiff and Appellant,



            v.



STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., et al.,



            Defendants and Respondents.



      B195286



      (Los Angeles County



      Super. Ct. No. SC087528)



            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Allan J. Goodman, Judge.  Affirmed.



            Westlake Law Group and Julian A. Simonis for Plaintiff and Appellant.



            Crandall, Wade & Lowe, James J. Crandall and Edwin B. Brown for Defendants and Respondents.



__________________________



After paying its insured Malibu Broadbeach, L.P. the full amount due under a property indemnity policy, a sum less than Malibu Broadbeach's total loss, State Farm General Insurance Co. (State Farm) proceeded independently against the third party tortfeasors responsible for the loss and thereafter settled its subrogation claim before its insured had been made whole by the tortfeasors.  Malibu Broadbeach then sued State Farm and Bartholomew & Associates, its subrogation lawyers, alleging they had improperly impaired its rights to further recovery from the tortfeasors.  The trial court sustained without leave to amend State Farm and its attorneys' demurrer to the first amended complaint.  Finding no impairment to Malibu Broadbeach's rights under the circumstances presented here, we affirm. 



FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND



1.      The Underlying Claim



In February 2002 Malibu Broadbeach purchased beachfront property that included a two-story structure adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway.  The building consisted of a downstairs garage and two upstairs apartments, which, apparently unbeknownst to Malibu Broadbeach, did not comply with current local building codes.  While the property was in escrow, Malibu Broadbeach obtained a rental dwelling insurance policy from State Farm that did not include a â€





Description After paying its insured Malibu Broadbeach, L.P. the full amount due under a property indemnity policy, a sum less than Malibu Broadbeach's total loss, State Farm General Insurance Co. (State Farm) proceeded independently against the third party tortfeasors responsible for the loss and thereafter settled its subrogation claim before its insured had been made whole by the tortfeasors. Malibu Broadbeach then sued State Farm and Bartholomew & Associates, its subrogation lawyers, alleging they had improperly impaired its rights to further recovery from the tortfeasors. The trial court sustained without leave to amend State Farm and its attorneys' demurrer to the first amended complaint. Finding no impairment to Malibu Broadbeach's rights under the circumstances presented here, Court affirm.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale