Vinkov

Vinkov v. Brotherhood Mutual Ins. Co. CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 2025E082818California2,171 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

A. BACKGROUND

The following quote is taken from the ruling by the federal court: “[Vinkov] was

a volunteer member of the Church Council for the Trinity Lutheran Church of Hemet.

[Citation.] The church has a general liability policy through [Brotherhood] that, under

certain circumstances, covers the actions of church employees and volunteers.

[Citation.] In 2018, a company called Solar Forward installed solar panels at the

church. [Citation.] Dissatisfied with the purported lack of savings in the church’s

energy bills promised by Solar Forward, [Vinkov] began investigating the church’s

energy usage. [Citation.] After Solar Forward was not sufficiently responsive to

[Vinkov’s] inquiries, [Vinkov] began posting critical reviews of Solar Forward on social

1 Vinkov requests this court take judicial notice of dictionary excerpts and the insurance policy. We deny both requests because the documents are not relevant to issue preclusion. (Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 722, 745.)

2 media. [Citation.] In particular, [Vinkov] posted a one-star review on the website

Yelp.com, stating Solar Forward’s products caused the church’s energy bills to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.