Author Information
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff insurer appealed a judgment of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County (California) that entered summary judgment in favor of
defendant insurer on a complaint for indemnity and contribution. Expert witness
designation included employment lawyer
for all parties during pretrial discovery.
Overview
Insured joint venture entered into a contract with insured
company to sponsor a music festival. The contract required company to indemnify
joint venture for personal injury loss, damage, or expense, and required
company to purchase liability insurance naming joint venture as an additional
insured. During the relevant period, plaintiff insurer insured joint venture
under general liability and excess insurance policies. Defendant excess insurer
insured company under an excess policy. An audience member was injured at the
festival while crowd surfing. The underlying action that resulted was settled.
Plaintiff provided a defense to joint venture and contributed toward the
settlement under its primary and excess policies. Defendant also contributed
towards the settlement under its excess policy. Plaintiff subsequently filed a
lawsuit, seeking indemnification from defendant. On cross-motions for summary
judgment, the trial court entered judgment for defendant. The appellate court
affirmed. Defendant's coverage was excess to that of any primary insurers.
Outcome
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for
defendant on the ground that defendant's insurance coverage was excess to the
coverage provided by plaintiff.
Procedural Posture
Defendant employee appealed the judgment of the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County (California) and the order granting a motion to
strike defendant's third amended cross-complaint that arose from plaintiff
company's action that sought to recover money owed. Defendant's cross-action
was for breach of oral agreements, common count for value of services rendered,
excessive attachment, and violation of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§
77a-77aa.
Overview
Plaintiff company filed an action against defendant employee
for money due and owing. Defendant denied the indebtedness and filed three
cross-complaints against plaintiff and cross-defendant company officers that
alleged breach of oral agreements, common count for value of services rendered,
excessive attachment, and violation of § 5 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.S.
§§ 77a-77aa. Upon the third cross-complaint, the trial court dismissed
defendant's action, and defendant sought review. On appeal, the court held that
the statute of frauds did not apply to an oral employment contract, even though
it provided in part for the measurement of defendant's compensation by annual
receipts, unless its terms foreclosed defendant's completion of performance
within one year. The court held that the statute of frauds did not apply to the
oral contract in its entirety where promises of performance not falling within
the statute were distinguishable from those that did. The court held that a
claim based on excessive attachment constituted a cause of action for abuse of
process, rather than for malicious prosecution, and such a claim could be
brought in the action in which the attachment issued.
Outcome
The court reversed in part because the trial court erred in
sustaining general demurrers without leave to amend by defendant employee as to
certain counts of his second and third cross-complaints. They were not barred
by the statute of frauds, one count was not demurrable, and one cause of action
was not premature. The court affirmed the dismissal in favor of cross-defendant
company officers.
