Landeros

Landeros v. Torres

Good Law
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 744·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 617·206 Cal. App. 4th 398·2012 WL 1869682
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 2012No. F060251California7,138 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Cornell, J.

Gustavo Davalos Torres appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Rocio M. Landeros (hereafter Landeros) and Marta L. Perez (sometimes hereafter plaintiffs).

The action arose out of an automobile collision that caused severe and permanent brain injuries to Landeros and significant but lesser injuries to Perez. Torres was intoxicated at the time of the collision. The jury awarded Landeros a total of $31,656,208 and awarded Perez $77,986.55.

*401 The primary issue is whether Landeros was insured at the time of the collision within the meaning of Civil Code section 3333.4 (hereafter section 3333.4). If Landeros was uninsured, then section 3333.4 would prevent her from recovering $22 million in noneconomic damages awarded to her by the jury. The vehicle Landeros was driving was purchased and insured by her father, Miguel Landeros. Landeros was unlicensed at the time of the collision. As we shall explain, we conclude Landeros was insured as a permissive user under Miguel Landeros’s insurance policy, notwithstanding her unlicensed status.

Torres also argues (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury, (2) Landeros’s counsel committed misconduct, and (3) the punitive…

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.