San Francisco/Los Angeles, Calif. (April 2024) - A trial team consisting of San Francisco Co-Managing Partner Julian J. Pardini and Los Angeles Partners Celia Moutes-Lee and Kayla E. Berlin recently obtained a defense verdict in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith action in Orange County. The court granted their motion for judgment after the plaintiff rested his case, eliminating the need to put on the defense's case.
The client had denied the plaintiff's claim for theft of his motorcycle on grounds that the plaintiff had made material misrepresentations and failed to cooperate in the investigation. Throughout the investigation of the claim and continuing through discovery in this litigation, the plaintiff made numerous inconsistent statements regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged theft, the value of the motorcycle, and the status of his loan payments for the motorcycle. The plaintiff admitted prior to trial that he had made misrepresentations but argued that they were unintentional and therefore were not a valid basis for denial of the claim. However, through cross-examination at trial, the plaintiff's many intentional misrepresentations were exposed, and he eventually admitted that he had intentionally misrepresented material facts regarding his conduct after discovery of the alleged theft to the client's coverage counsel.
Following the presentation of plaintiff's case, culminating in his cross-examination, the defense brought a motion for judgment, arguing that plaintiff's testimony was not credible, the evidence established that he had knowingly and willfully misrepresented numerous material facts in presenting his claim for theft of the motorcycle, and the court had sufficient evidence to rule in favor of defendant without the need for defendant to put on its case.
In granting the motion, the court found that "the plaintiff's testimony was so replete with inconsistencies, contradictions, selective memory, evasiveness, and if that wasn't enough, an admission to lying under oath, that he utterly failed to sufficiently establish either a) breach, or b) bad faith on the defendant's part." The court further wrote in its statement of decision that "[t]he first step in the evaluation of any claim is witness credibility, and where, as here, that credibility is wholly extirpated, any further examination of potentially meritorious factual or legal issues is unneeded."
A special congratulations to Celia and Kayla for their outstanding work-up of this case for trial which was integral to the success of the motion for judgment.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.