Eigner

Eigner v. Worthington

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 660·57 Cal. App. 4th 188·66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 808·97 Daily Journal DAR 10847·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6708
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 20, 1997D022897California3,900 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

In an action arising from hostilities between two neighboring families, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) refused to defend its insured, Gloria Worthington, having determined— without any investigation beyond merely comparing the complaint’s allegations with coverage provisions—there was no policy coverage for the alleged injuries. Later, potentially facing liability for a $240,700 judgment entered against Worthington for covered injuries, as well as tort liability, State Farm intervened and moved to have the judgment vacated based on its “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b)), arguing had it known plaintiffs’ claims were covered, it would have defended Worthington and obtained a more favorable result. We conclude State Farm’s contention the court abused its discretion in denying the motion is meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the order.

Factual and Procedural Background

In March 1993, Joan and Akira Eigner and their children, Joey, Juliann and Jackie, filed a complaint against Worthington and her son Lester, containing causes of action for assault, violation of Civil Code section 51.7 (hate crimes),…

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.