Shapiro

Shapiro v. Prudential Property & Casualty Co.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 83·52 Cal. App. 4th 722·60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 698·97 Daily Journal DAR 1269·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 878
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 5, 1997A072273California2,756 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lambden, J.

The Prudential Property and Casualty Co. et al. (Prudential) appeal the court’s decision to grant a new trial on damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 657. (All further unspecified code sections refer to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Allan W. Shapiro, M.D. (Shapiro) cross-appeals the court’s denial of his motions to vacate the judgment and enter a different judgment (pursuant to § 663) and to impose a “partial” judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) (pursuant to § 629).

We find the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a new trial on damages based on Shapiro’s motion to correct the verdict. We also find no merit to Shapiro’s cross-appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

Background

On October 20, 1991, Shapiro lost his home in the Berkeley-Oakland fire. As a result, he filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Prudential. Later, after disputing the insurance coverage, he sued Prudential for, among other claims, negligently misrepresenting “that the terms and conditions of said policy as issued were sufficient and adequate to protect Plaintiff in the event of a total loss.”

After a jury trial, the jury rendered its special verdict finding Prudential liable…

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.