Prince

Prince v. Invensure Ins. Brokers, Inc.

Good Law
23 Cal. App. 5th 614·232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 887
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 2018G051996; G052060; G052122California3,110 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Moore, J.

*616 The parties appeal and cross-appeal a judgment after a jury trial in this business dispute. Plaintiff and cross-defendant Duncan E. Prince obtained a judgment of $647,706.48 against defendant and cross-complainant Invensure Insurance Brokers, Inc. (Invensure). Invensure took nothing on its cross-complaint against Prince and his related business entity, cross-defendant ERM Insurance Brokers, Inc. (ERM).

Invensure appeals from the judgment, arguing the trial court wrongly decided *889 issues related to the statute of limitations and numerous issues with respect to substantial evidence to support the judgment. It also claims the court abused its discretion when admitting certain evidence.

Prince and ERM also appeal from two postjudgment orders, arguing the court erroneously granted a motion to tax costs and to deny them attorney fees. We find the court erred with respect to the validity of Prince's offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, 1 and remand that issue for further consideration by the trial court. We authorize publication with respect to our discussion of this issue only.

*617 With respect to attorney fees, Prince argues he is entitled to…

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.