Triplett

Triplett v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 452·24 Cal. App. 4th 1415·29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 741·94 Daily Journal DAR 6168·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3276
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 5, 1994D016849California3,476 words

Opinion

Opinion

Froehlich, J.

In a personal injury action, plaintiff and respondent Elizabeth Triplett (Triplett) recovered a jury verdict against defendant Thomas Simko (Simko). After the verdict was entered, the court ordered that Simko’s insurer, appellant Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) be added as an additional defendant, and then sanctioned Farmers over $15,000 for refusing to settle before trial. Farmers appeals, raising a number of challenges to the sanctions order.

We conclude that, however salutary the benefits of encouraging pretrial settlements, the court is not empowered to sanction a defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 for defending an action rather than settling, much less to add an insurer after judgment as a party in order to impose such a sanction.

I. The Genesis of the Action

A. Pretrial Proceedings

In September 1990, Triplett sued Simko for injuries she sustained when his truck rear-ended her car.

During the pretrial discovery the defense’s medical expert, Dr. William Curran (Curran), examined Triplett. At his deposition in October 1991, Curran opined that the duration of the therapy appeared excessive, and hence so did the charges incurred therefor,…

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.