CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘California Appeals Court’

998s: The Stealth Policy Limit Demand

Posted on: February 7th, 2019

By: Tim Kenna & Kristin Ingulsrud

In personal injury practice, the claimant’s attorney will sometimes serve a statutory offer to compromise in tandem with service of the summons and complaint. This strategy has a two-fold impact on the case. The first is that if the plaintiff obtains a better result at trial, it may seek costs and prejudgment interest at 10%. The second is that the 998 be relied upon as a policy limit demand. In both cases, the running of the defendant’s time to accept the 998 triggers the consequences of a failure to settle. An insurer’s rejection of a valid policy limit demand can result in extracontractual exposure. Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, No. BC499153, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 2*, directly addresses the requirement that an early 998 is only valid if the offer is reasonable under the totality of the facts. The relevant factors are (1) how far into the litigation the 998 offer was made, (2) the information available to the offeree prior to the lapse of the 998 offer, (3) whether the offeree let the offeror know it lacked sufficient information to evaluate the offer, and (4) how the offeror responded. The court struck plaintiffs request for millions in prejudgment interest following a verdict far in excess of the 998 on the ground that it was premature because Cedars had not had an adequate opportunity to evaluate damages.

Licudine is relevant to the 998 used as a policy limit demand. The factors considered by Licudine also apply to the determination of the validity of conditional policy limit demands in general. See Critz v. Farmers Ins. Group (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 788, 798 (insurer should request additional time to respond to policy limit demand if further investigation of facts needed). Following trial, the results of a motion to tax costs could determine whether the 998 was valid as a policy limit demand. In either event, the case is critical of the premature demand for settlement designed to “game the system.”

If you have any questions or would like more information please contact Tim Kenna at [email protected] and Kristin Ingulsrud at [email protected].

Facebook And Association Criticism: How To Address Unfounded Allegations Against An Association And Its Board

Posted on: October 12th, 2018

By: Jonathan Romvary

How far can a Board go in fighting against what they believe is unfair homeowner criticism? Can they publish a formal response to unfounded allegations? How should Associations address online criticism on unofficial Facebook groups created by dissatisfied homeowners?

These issues were partially addressed in a recent unpublished California Appeals Court decision in Kulick v. Leisure Village Association (2018). Kulick involved two consecutive lawsuits between a homeowner who was anonymously publishing an unofficial newsletter that was highly critical of his Homeowner’s Association, the Association’s Board and its attorneys. Unfortunately for the homeowner, the HOAs rules specifically prohibited the dissemination of anonymous publications to the Association’s members and the Association successfully filed suit against the homeowner for breaching the Association’s covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and was awarded more than $125,000.00 including punitive damages.

After losing his appeal, and apparently not learning from the prior lawsuit, the homeowner began republishing his anonymous newsletter criticizing the Association’s Board, this time asserting that the Board and its officers committed perjury, extortion, obstruction of justice, racketeering, and lying and cheating. The Association’s attorneys responded to the most recent allegations by distributing an official letter to all of the homeowners addressing the allegations as a “reckless communication” containing “unfounded, inaccurate, and spiteful allegations” against the Association and detailing the prior lawsuit against the homeowner. Feeling attacked by the HOA, the homeowner filed a lawsuit against the Association for, among other things, defamation. The HOA defended itself saying its actions were protected under California’s anti-SLAPP laws which are designed to protect defendants who have been sued for acts in furtherance of a constitutionally protected right of free speech or petition. The trial court agreed, finding that the Association’s letter constituted “protected activity” as a public writing relating to an issue of public interest to the Association’s homeowners’, i.e. the lawsuit between the Association and homeowner. Ultimately the California Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s ruling.

From Kulick, it is clear that Associations may respond to individual criticisms that are not legally permissible (e.g. false assertions of fact, etc.) and have certain rights against defamation published by its members. However, it remains unclear to what extent Associations can restrict alternative forms of publications, such as Facebook community groups or anonymous Twitter accounts. In the age of Facebook, where publishing and distribution is free and easy, Associations must remain vigilant. False accusations and anonymous publications can cause significant disruption to the operation and reputation of an Association. Associations should be alert for publications containing false assertions or publications that purport to be official communication and should address any statements that defame the association, its board of directors, managing agent, or employees.

If you have any questions on how your Association can be proactive and protect itself against unofficial homeowner publications or would like more information, please contact Jonathan Romvary at [email protected].