Tomaselli

Tomaselli v. Transamerica Insurance

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 627·25 Cal. App. 4th 1766·31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 224·94 Daily Journal DAR 8570·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4658
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 20, 1994D016409California2,717 words

Opinion

Opinion

Froehlich, J.

This appeal revisits the dispute between Dominick and Denise Tomaselli (Tomasellis) and Transamerica Insurance Company. The dispositive issue is whether an insured, after suing his insurer for failure to pay a claim and recovering a judgment, may again sue if the insurer does not immediately pay the judgment. The trial court concluded such a cause of action could not be asserted. We agree and thus affirm.

1. Facts

We summarily state the relevant facts. In the first lawsuit (hereafter action one) Tomasellis sued Transamerica for refusing to pay a claim they made in 1987 on their homeowners policy. In action one, Tomasellis alleged that failure to pay their claim was both a breach of contract and in bad faith. Tomasellis sought, and the jury awarded, compensatory and punitive damages which encompassed damages for both breach of contract and bad faith. Part of the award in action one was a $260,000 award for breach of contract damages.

After the verdict was entered in action one, Tomasellis demanded that Transamerica either pay their claim (i.e„ the $260,000 portion of the verdict in action one representing contract benefits) or explain why it would not be paid.…

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.