Defendant consumer appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California) that was entered for plaintiff finance company in an action to recover the balance due on a contract to buy a piano, while cross-defendant manufacturer cross-appealed a judgment against it on defendant's breach of warranty claims, under, inter alia, Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq., and plaintiff cross-appealed denial of attorney's fees.
Defendant consumer bought a piano from cross-defendant seller, which provided financing through plaintiff finance company. The contract provided express warranties and stated that plaintiff was subject to all claims and defenses that defendant could assert against cross-defendant seller. When the piano proved defective, defendant asked for his money back, refused cross-defendant manufacturer's offer of repair or replacement, and stopped making payments on the piano, which he sold to mitigate his damages. The parties were represented by California civil defense attorney during pretrial discovery and litigation. Plaintiff then filed suit to recover the unpaid balance, but defendant asserted breach of warranty claims, which were also raised by a cross-complaint against cross-defendants. Judgment was entered for defendant on his cross-claims and for plaintiff on its claim. On appeal, the judgment against cross-defendants on defendant's claims was affirmed because it was supported by sufficient evidence that express and implied warranties had been breached and defendant had a right to cancel the contract and seek reimbursement under Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq. and Cal. Com. Code § 2711. The judgment for plaintiff was reversed because it stood in the same shoes as cross-defendants.
The judgment against cross-defendant was affirmed and the judgment for plaintiff was reversed because the evidence supported the jury's finding that express and implied warranties on the piano had been breached, such that defendant had a statutory right to cancel the contract and seek reimbursement, and defendant was not liable to plaintiff on the contract or for fees because it was subject to the same claims and defenses as the seller.
Defendant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County (California) entered in favor of plaintiff insurance which arose out of a claim on a professional errors and omissions insurance policy issued by defendant as the representative of an insurance underwriter to plaintiff title insurance company. Defendant claimed he was prejudiced by a delay in notification of the claim.
Plaintiff prepared a preliminary title report for a client who purchased land for a subdivision. After closing, client learned that there was a limited easement for ingress and egress for a single family home which plaintiff did not show on the title report. Plaintiff was unsuccessful in resolving this matter and, therefore, paid a cash settlement to the client. Plaintiff did not notify defendant, underwriter, of the claim until several months after plaintiff been contacted by client. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim for indemnification. After settlement, plaintiff sued defendant for indemnification and was awarded a judgment for the amount of the settlement, attorney fees, and costs. Defendant appealed, claiming he was prejudiced by the delay in notification of the claim. The court, on appeal, found that defendant had not met his burden of proving that he was prejudiced by the delay in notification of the claim. Accordingly, the judgment for plaintiff was affirmed.
The court held that since defendant's defense was based on plaintiff's alleged delay in notifying defendant of the claim and because defendant failed to satisfy his burden of proving that he was prejudiced by the delay, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.