Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co.





















Filed 10/26/10 Mallard v. Progressive Choice
Ins. Co. CA4/3









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

WINLY MALLARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent; WILLIAM A. KENT, Objector and Appellant.

G042778 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00113232) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of Orange
County, Kazuharu Makino, Judge. Affirmed.

William A. Kent, in pro.
per., for Objector and Appellant and for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Yocis & Cox and
Stephen M. Smith for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff
and appellant Winly Mallard, while represented by her attorney, objector and
appellant William A. Kent, filed a verified complaint against her insurer,
defendant Progressive Choice Insurance Company (Progressive), alleging
Progressive wrongfully failed to pay certain medical expenses under an
automobile policy it issued to her.
Progressive propounded requests for admission to Mallard, requesting,
inter alia, she admit that Progressive made certain medical payments under the
policy; Mallard denied each of the requests.


Progressive also
propounded form interrogatory No. 17.1 to Mallard, which asked whether her
denials to the requests for admission were qualified, and, for each qualified
denial, required her to state all the facts upon which she based her denial and
to identify persons with knowledge of such facts and documents supporting her
response. Although Mallard's response
showed all but one of her denials to the requests for admission were qualified,
her response to form interrogatory No. 17.1 simply stated that after â€