California Car Accident

The Accident, Walker’s Claim, and Walker’s Lawsuit

On January 25, 2001, Walker was involved in an accident in which he was hit from behind by a vehicle driven by uninsured motorist Gregory Jamerson (Jamerson).  Jamerson’s vehicle had been pushed into Walker’s car by insured motorist Sonja Wortham (Wortham).  Wortham was insured by AAA.  Walker made a claim on his automobile insurance policy issued by Mercury.  Mercury informed Walker that it had obtained a statement from Jamerson wherein he stated that he had been struck from behind by Wortham.  

 Walker contended that Mercury did not sufficiently reimburse him for the damage to his car and only paid for used or refurbished parts.  Mercury advised Walker that because Wortham was insured, it was denying that portion of his claim based upon his uninsured motorist coverage.  Mercury advised Walker to pursue his claim with AAA. 
 Thereafter, Walker hired his own attorney to prosecute an action against Jamerson and Wortham.  After service of the complaint, Jamerson informed him that Wortham’s insurance had paid to repair his car and that he did not intend to respond to Walker’s complaint, and denied that his car had hit Walker’s car.  Walker was never able to serve Jamerson with the complaint.  

 To rebut Jamerson’s denial that his car had hit Walker, Walker requested Jamerson’s statement from Mercury.  Mercury refused to provide him with the statement, contending the material was privileged and it could not do so without Jamerson’s permission.  During trial of his action against Jamerson and Wortham, Walker discovered that Mercury had provided all of the information relating to the accident in his files to Wortham’s attorneys.  Walker contended Mercury and AAA conspired together, and that Wortham and AAA introduced at trial false pictures of his automobile which were designed to make it appear minor damage had occurred; introduced copies of Mercury’s checks to plaintiff which was designed to make it appear Walker was attempting to collect twice for the same damage; and introduced inflated damage estimates which were for new parts, rather than the used and refurbished parts actually used on Walker’s car.  As a result, Walker contended he lost his action against Wortham.  

 Walker’s first amended complaint alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Insurance Code section 791.01 (based upon Mercury’s release of plaintiff’s files).  The first amended complaint also contained allegations of conspiracy based upon Mercury’s participation in the Wortham lawsuit as the provider of documents and other information.  

 2. Mercury’s Summary Judgment Motion.

 Mercury filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it supplied the requested information to Walker, Walker negotiated the checks paid in full settlement of his claim, and Walker’s uninsured motorist coverage did not apply because Jamerson was not the cause of the accident.  In any event, Mercury contended that under the contract:  (1) it had no duty to provide Walker with information relevant to a third party lawsuit; (2) Walker failed to file suit within 12 months of the accident on his collision claim; and (3) Walker failed to seek arbitration on his uninsured motorist claim.  Mercury contended Walker could not establish any conspiracy because he could not establish a causal link between alleged wrongful conduct and the jury’s special verdict that Wortham was not negligent, and it could not be liable for infliction of emotional distress because it did not engage in outrageous conduct and had no duty to Walker. 
 Mercury’s evidentiary support consisted of the declaration of its claims adjustor who stated that:  Mercury investigated and paid plaintiff’s claim; plaintiff failed to request arbitration; Mercury was pursuing its subrogation rights when it engaged in communications with AAA; Walker was provided with Jamerson’s statement pursuant to subpoena on April 3, 2002; and Mercury’s representatives appeared at trial as requested with Walker’s entire claims file.  In addition, Mercury issued two checks to Walker in October 2001, both of which stated on their face that they were in full settlement of his claim.  Walker negotiated both checks.  

 In opposition to Mercury’s summary judgment motion, Walker submitted his attorney’s declaration stating that at the start of trial of his action against Jamerson and Wortham, the attorney for AAA told the judge that she had received documents and evidence from Mercury that Walker had filed fraudulent claims and that she was therefore unwilling to offer anything in settlement of the claim.  Furthermore, AAA’s accident reconstruction expert testified that based upon Mercury’s photographs and repair estimates of the damage, Walker’s damages were slight.  Walker’s attorney’s declaration stated that AAA’s attorney also offered the checks negotiated by Walker, and AAA’s attorney argued to the jury that Walker was attempting to collect twice for injuries and damages that Mercury had already compensated him for. 
  
 Walker also submitted his declaration in which he stated that he never received a complete copy of his insurance policy; that in spite of this, he attempted to comply with its provisions after his accidents; the damage to his car was severe; Mercury never complied with his request for a copy of his insurance policy; his mechanic told him that quality repairs could not be made for the money that Mercury was offering; and that Walker had chronic back problems and would need surgery and a hip and knee replacement.
  
 In a supplemental opposition, Walker argued that he was uncompensated for his damages; Mercury failed to pay his uninsured motorist claim based on the collision with Jamerson; and Mercury in bad faith assisted Jamerson and Wortham in Walker’s lawsuit against them.   

 The trial court granted Mercury’s summary judgment motion.  In its order, the court stated that it found Mercury produced the requested documents at trial; Mercury had no duty to provide documents under the contract; plaintiff failed to rebut Mercury’s showing that he was required to present his uninsured motorist claim to arbitration; Mercury was entitled to disclose the settlement checks for purposes of pursuing its subrogation rights and was therefore not in violation of Insurance Code section 791.01; and there was no evidence that Mercury’s conduct was wrongful, and thus Mercury did not engage in outrageous conduct.  

 However, no judgment was entered for Mercury.  

 3. C.F.P. Motion for Summary Judgment.

 On December 24, 2003, CFP filed a motion for summary judgment contending that all of plaintiff’s claims against it failed as a matter of law because it was not a party to the contract and plaintiff’s conspiracy claims were unsupported by the facts.  CFP was plaintiff’s insurance agent and obtained the policy for plaintiff, but was not involved in the handling of plaintiff’s claim or in the trial against Wortham. 
 
 Prior to the hearing on the matter, set for March 16, 2004, plaintiff failed to file any opposition.  At the hearing, plaintiff advised the court it was prepared to file an opposition.  The court ordered counsel to file a declaration justifying a late filing.  The court ordered counsel to file his opposition immediately, and continued the hearing to March 18, 2004, in order to allow plaintiff to file the explanatory declaration.  The court concluded that because plaintiff’s opposition was due March 2, 2004, and the illness in counsel’s family occurred on March 8, 2004, there was no justification for the late filing, and granted CFP’s motion.  Judgment was entered for CFP. 

Contact California Car Accident Attorneys

Contact a Car Accident Lawyer near you now and get a FREE Case Evaluation.