Diagnostic Data, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd.

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 157·1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 825·34 Cal. App. 3d 556
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 10, 1973Civ. No. 33070California484 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*558 Opinion

Appellant employer, Diagnostic Data, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Santa Clara Superior Court denying its petition for a writ of mandate.

Under section 1030.5 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, a penalty may be assessed against the employer’s reserve account where the employer “willfully makes a false statement or representation or willfully fails to report a material fact concerning the termination of a claimant’s employment, . . .” The provision does not require an “intent to deceive.” We may properly assume that when the legislature added section 1030.5 to the code 1 it was aware of the language used in subdivision (a) of section 1257 2 of the same code, and if it had wished to impose an “intent” requirement, it would have adopted language such as that found in section 11482 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

“It has been held that answers to written questions set forth in application forms relative to insurance are generally deemed material representations [citations]; and that in the making of a false representation which is material to the risk the presence of an intent to deceive is not essential [citation].” (Cal-West. States etc. Co. v.…

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.