Frazier, Dame, Doherty, Parrish & Hanawalt v. Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Teerlink & Bell

Good Law
138 Cal. Rptr. 670·1977 Cal. App. LEXIS 1518·70 Cal. App. 3d 331·42 Cal. Comp. Cases 1150
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 2, 1977Civ. 48464California1,990 words

Opinion

Opinion

Compton, J.

In an action for tortious interference with contractual relations brought by a firm of attorneys (hereafter Frazier) against another law firm (hereafter Boccardo), an insurance company and an investigator, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of defendants. This appeal ensued.

After hearing oral argument we filed an opinion on April 13, 1977, affirming the summary judgment as to all defendants although in that opinion we expressed our disapproval of the conduct of a member of the Boccardo firm and suggested the relationship between Boccardo and investigator McIntyre was suspect.

Both plaintiffs and Boccardo for divergent reasons petitioned this court for a rehearing which we granted. Upon re-examination we have concluded that as to Boccardo and McIntyre our previous decision was in error and that as to those two defendants there are sufficient triable issues of fact to warrant denial of summary judgment. Consequently as to those defendants we reverse.

One Clarence Johnson was injured on a construction site during the course of his employment. Defendant Great American Insurance Company (Great American) was the workers’ compensation carrier for Johnson’s…

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.