Attorney fees awarded under California

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff insured appealed a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which ruled that a commercial building owner's policy issued by defendant insurer did not provide coverage for lost rents when there was no tenant in the building.

Overview: trial court delay reduction act

The policy provided coverage for the loss of rents that the insured would have collected but for property damage. It did not limit recovery in the event of vacancy. At the time the policy was issued, a tenant was leasing the property. The property became vacant, and two potential tenants made offers. The insured executed a letter of intent with one of the potential tenants. Shortly thereafter, thieves stole copper wire and pipes, causing extensive damage. The prospective tenant declined to lease the property. The insured presented evidence that it had lost the prospective tenant in part because of the delay required to resolve the insurance claim. The court concluded that the lost rents provision was ambiguous and had to be construed to protect the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage for rents actually lost, whether from an existing tenant or a new tenant. The policy language did not condition recovery of lost rents on an existing lease, thus reflecting under Civ. Code, §§ 1636, 1638, 1639, the parties' intent not to impose such a condition. A triable issue of fact existed as to whether the insured would have secured a new tenant but for the property damage.

Outcome

The court reversed and remanded with directions to enter a new and different order denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment.

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-Attorney fees awarded under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civ. Code, § 3426.4, belong to the prevailing litigant’s attorney to the extent they exceed the fees the litigant has already paid, absent an enforceable agreement to the contrary; [2]-The fact that the parties had entered into an agreement about the amount the attorney could charge the client for its services could not reasonably be construed as an agreement that the client would be entitled to all statutorily awarded fees; [3]-California's Mandatory Fee Arbitration Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6200 et seq., did not apply to the dispute because the fee to be paid had been determined pursuant to statute; [4]-The litigant was not denied its constitutional right to a jury trial because the claim was in equity.

Outcome

Judgment affirmed.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service