Appellant insured challenged an order from the Superior Court of Los Angles County (California), which sustained respondent insurer's demurrer and dismissed his suit to preclude respondent from spending premium revenues on political activities opposed by him, and to compel respondent to distribute excess surplus funds to its policyholders under Cal. Const. art. I, § 2, Cal. Ins. Code § 1861.05(a) and Cal. Ins. Code § 1861.10(a).

Overview

In appellant insured's suit to preclude respondent insurer from spending premium revenues on political activities opposed by him, and to compel respondent to distribute excess surplus funds, the trial court sustained respondent's demurrer and dismissed appellant's suit. On appeal, the CACI defamation affirmed, holding appellant did not state a cause of action for relief. Respondent's right of free speech was protected by Cal. Const. art. I, § 2, and appellant's rights as a dissenting policyholder were not impermissibly subordinated to those of respondent. Appellant was not compelled to purchase insurance from respondent and had no right to any surplus until respondent decided to declare a dividend. The court held that respondent was attacking respondent's director's decision regarding the declaration of a dividend, and failed to allege facts showing the directors' decision was not made in good faith or in the best interests of the corporation as required under the business judgment rule. The court held that appellant had not exhausted his administrative remedies under Cal. Ins. Code § 1861.05(a) and Cal. Ins. Code §1861.10(a) prior to bringing suit.

Outcome

The court affirmed the dismissal of appellant insured's suit against respondent insurer. Appellant failed to state a cause of action for relief in that he sought to preclude respondent from spending premium revenues on political activities opposed by him, and sought to compel respondent to distribute surplus funds. Appellant's right to free speech was not subordinated to respondent's and appellant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Appellant investors sought review of an order from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which entered a judgment on a defense verdict in favor of respondent advisor after a jury trial was held in appellant's action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Overview

After a jury trial was held in appellant investors' action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of respondent advisor. Appellants contended that they were prejudiced by the use of a special verdict form for the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, which appellants claimed was contrary to that approved by stipulation of the parties and was in any case contrary to law, and moreover that certain special verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent, improper, and contrary to the evidence. The court reversed the judgment entered on the special verdict on the breach of fiduciary duty claim alone, and affirmed the judgment with respect to the causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Appellants were significantly prejudiced by the incorrect statement of law that was in the special verdict form used for the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

Outcome

The court reversed the trial court's order, which entered judgment on the special verdict on the breach of fiduciary duty claim alone, and affirmed the judgment with respect to the causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The court found that the special verdict form used for the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty contained an incorrect statement of law and its use significantly prejudiced appellant investors.