Coprich

Coprich v. Superior Court

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 394·2000 Daily Journal DAR 5345·80 Cal. App. 4th 1081·95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 884·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4012
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 19, 2000No. B137691California4,597 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Croskey, J.

*1083 Opinion

Plaintiffs Chantal Coprich and Jeffrey J. Coprich, Jr., through Chantal Coprich as his guardian ad litem, challenge an order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) and Board Ford, Inc. (Board Ford), against a cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence. The claim arises from the destruction of an automobile that was involved in a fatal accident. Plaintiffs contend Johnson v. United Services Automobile Assn. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 626 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 234 ] and other appellate court opinions recognize a cause of action for negligent spoliation and are not inconsistent with recent opinions by the Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 248 , 954 P.2d 511 ] (Cedars-Sinai) and Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 464 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 852 , 976 P.2d 223 ] (Temple Community). We conclude the policy considerations that caused the court in Cedars-Sinai and Temple Community to find that there is no tort remedy for intentional spoliation of evidence also compel the conclusion that there is no tort remedy for…

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.