LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >LOS ANGELES<br /> UNIFIED </b><b >SCHOOL DISTRICT</b><b<br /> > v. GREAT<br /> AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/12/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >IN THE SUPREME<br /> COURT OF </b><b >CALIFORNIA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL )<br /> <br/>DISTRICT, )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Plaintiff,<br /> Cross-defendant )<br /> <br/> and<br /> Respondent, )<br /> <br/> ) S165113<br /> <br/> v. )<br /> <br/> ) Ct.App. 2/2 B189133<br /> <br/>GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE )<br /> <br/>COMPANY, )<br /> <br/> ) Los<br /> Angeles County<br /> <br/> Defendant and Appellant; ) Super.<br /> Ct. No. BC247848<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/>HAYWARD<br /> CONSTRUCTION )<br /> <br/>COMPANY, )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Defendant, Cross- )<br /> <br/> complainant<br /> and Appellant. )<br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM <br /> PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>In sum,<br /> established law provides public entities substantial protection against<br /> careless bidding practices by contractors and forecloses the possibility that a<br /> public entity will be held liable when a contractor's own lack of diligence<br /> prevented it from fully appreciating the costs of performance. This being so, protection against careless<br /> bidding practices does not require that we allow contractors damaged by a<br /> public entity's misleading nondisclosure to recover only on a showing the<br /> public entity harbored a fraudulent intent. <br /> We therefore disagree with the reasoning in <i >Jasper Construction, Inc. v. Foothill Junior College Dist.</i>,<i<br /> > supra</i>,<i > </i>91 Cal.App.3d at page 10, that a showing of active<br /> misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment is needed to prevent burdening<br /> â€