Plaintiff purchaser and defendant motor company, both appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County (California), awarding damages to plaintiff in an action against defendant for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and property damage.
The seller made repeated repairs to the truck. Finally, the truck's brakes failed and plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff refused to make further payments on the truck and the seller repossessed it. The trial court found that defendant had breached its warranty to plaintiff and awarded damages, including the purchase price and lost profits. Plaintiff challenged denial of damages resulting from the accident, and defendant challenged the damages award. The court affirmed, holding that there was a breach of the express warranty contained in the purchase order, even though when plaintiff bought the truck he was unaware defendant was a party to the warranty. Plaintiff was not entitled to damages under a strict liability theory because the trial court found that there was no proof that the truck's defect caused its physical damage. The parties were represented by their respective business attorneys.
The court affirmed the judgment.
Plaintiff insured sought review from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), sustaining defendants', three insurance companies, an insurance investigator, and a law firm representing the insurance companies, general demurrers and dismissing his action against them for breach of their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, with regard to benefits under fire insurance policies.
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that they willfully entered into a scheme to deprive him of the benefits under his fire insurance policies by falsely implying that he had a motive to deliberately set fire to and burn down his place of business. The trial court sustained defendants' general demurrers and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint as to the three insurance companies. It found that plaintiff stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in tort against defendant insurance companies for breach of their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and that plaintiff stated facts sufficient for the recovery of damages for mental distress. As to the remaining defendants, the court found that they were not subject to any implied duty arising from a contractual relationship with plaintiff, and that the complaint did not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against them.
The court reversed the order and the cause was remanded to the trial court with directions to overrule the demurrers and to allow defendants a reasonable time within which to answer. As to the remaining defendants, the judgment was affirmed. Plaintiff should recover his costs on appeal from defendants, and the other defendants shall recover their costs on appeal from plaintiff.