Quackenbush

Quackenbush v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 710·57 Cal. App. 4th 660·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 300·97 Daily Journal DAR 11663·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7250
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 8, 1997B104666California780 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Here we hold that Insurance Code section 12389 does not impose a mandatory duty on the Insurance Commissioner (hereinafter Commissioner) to prohibit an underwritten title company that has violated the Insurance Code from doing business or to warn the public. We issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order overruling the Commissioner’s demurrer to the complaint.

Facts

Francis Kaye Lyons alleged in his amended complaint that Trico Title Insurance Company was an underwritten title company conducting the business of title insurance. (§§ 12340.5, 12340.3.)

In January of 1994, the Commissioner received a report showing that Trico had submitted a falsified financial statement to the Department of Insurance and maintained an underfunded escrow account, both violations of the Insurance Code. The Commissioner took no immediate action.

In April and July of 1994, Lyons deposited funds into escrow with Trico totaling $36,402. In August of 1994, the Commissioner seized Trico.

The complaint alleged that upon discovery of Trico’s improprieties the Commissioner had a mandatory duty under section 12389 either to warn Lyons or immediately stop Trico from doing…

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.