Slaney v. Signal Aviation
Slaney v. Signal Aviation
02:10:2006
Slaney v. Signal Aviation
Filed 2/2/06 Slaney v. Signal Aviation Underwriters CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
RICHARD SLANEY,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
SIGNAL AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B179981
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. LC058645)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Farrell and Michael Harwin, Judges. Reversed and remanded.
Law Office of Mark F. Didak and Mark F. Didak for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Barger & Wolen, Gregory O. Eisenreich and Michael A. S. Newman for Defendants and Respondents.
BACKGROUND
Appellant Richard Slaney appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court denied his motions for reconsideration and for leave to file a first amended complaint, by which appellant intended to correct a previous ruling that had the effect of striking respondents from the original complaint without notice. Since leave to amend was denied in part on the ground that appellant had unreasonably delayed in seeking leave, we shall pay particular attention to the timeline of all proceedings in this action.
On December 14, 2001, appellant filed a complaint for damages, alleging malicious prosecution in count 1, and conspiracy to maliciously prosecute a civil action in count 2. The complaint names the following defendants: Ranger Insurance Company; Signal Aviation Underwriters, Inc.; Underwriters Adjustment Bureau, Inc., and its successor in interest, Universal Loss Management, Inc.; Paul Leonard, an officer of Underwriters Adjustment Bureau; and Art Wasserman and his law firm, Wasserman & Miller, attorneys for Ranger Insurance Company.[1]
The first cause of action charges Ranger and Wasserman with malicious prosecution, alleging that appellant was the former owner of a Firecracker airplane, which he had sold to Sean and Nadia Roberts, who insured the airplane under a policy issued by Ranger.[2] When the airplane was damaged in a crash, Roberts made a claim against that policy, and sought appellant's assistance in providing plans and jigs necessary in the repair of the airplane, and in estimating the cost of repairs.[3]
The first cause of action also alleges that in order to avoid liability on the claim, or to delay payment of it, Ranger and others developed a plan to accuse appellant and Roberts of attempting to defraud Ranger by overstating the cost of repairs, having the airplane declared a total loss, and bribing a salvage company to provide a false estimate of salvage value.
It is alleged that when Roberts sued Ranger to enforce the claim and for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Ranger filed a cross-complaint making these fraud allegations, which Ranger, Wasserman, and Leonard knew to be false. Further, it is alleged that Leonard gave false testimony in furtherance of the cross-complaint, and Ranger and Wasserman knew the testimony to be false, causing appellant to suffer damages. Appellant obtained a favorable termination of the cross-complaint on the merits.[4]
The second cause of action, denominated â€
02:10:2006
Filed 2/2/06 Slaney v. Signal Aviation Underwriters CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
RICHARD SLANEY,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
SIGNAL AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B179981
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. LC058645)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Farrell and Michael Harwin, Judges. Reversed and remanded.
Law Office of Mark F. Didak and Mark F. Didak for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Barger & Wolen, Gregory O. Eisenreich and Michael A. S. Newman for Defendants and Respondents.
BACKGROUND
Appellant Richard Slaney appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court denied his motions for reconsideration and for leave to file a first amended complaint, by which appellant intended to correct a previous ruling that had the effect of striking respondents from the original complaint without notice. Since leave to amend was denied in part on the ground that appellant had unreasonably delayed in seeking leave, we shall pay particular attention to the timeline of all proceedings in this action.
On December 14, 2001, appellant filed a complaint for damages, alleging malicious prosecution in count 1, and conspiracy to maliciously prosecute a civil action in count 2. The complaint names the following defendants: Ranger Insurance Company; Signal Aviation Underwriters, Inc.; Underwriters Adjustment Bureau, Inc., and its successor in interest, Universal Loss Management, Inc.; Paul Leonard, an officer of Underwriters Adjustment Bureau; and Art Wasserman and his law firm, Wasserman & Miller, attorneys for Ranger Insurance Company.[1]
The first cause of action charges Ranger and Wasserman with malicious prosecution, alleging that appellant was the former owner of a Firecracker airplane, which he had sold to Sean and Nadia Roberts, who insured the airplane under a policy issued by Ranger.[2] When the airplane was damaged in a crash, Roberts made a claim against that policy, and sought appellant's assistance in providing plans and jigs necessary in the repair of the airplane, and in estimating the cost of repairs.[3]
The first cause of action also alleges that in order to avoid liability on the claim, or to delay payment of it, Ranger and others developed a plan to accuse appellant and Roberts of attempting to defraud Ranger by overstating the cost of repairs, having the airplane declared a total loss, and bribing a salvage company to provide a false estimate of salvage value.
It is alleged that when Roberts sued Ranger to enforce the claim and for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Ranger filed a cross-complaint making these fraud allegations, which Ranger, Wasserman, and Leonard knew to be false. Further, it is alleged that Leonard gave false testimony in furtherance of the cross-complaint, and Ranger and Wasserman knew the testimony to be false, causing appellant to suffer damages. Appellant obtained a favorable termination of the cross-complaint on the merits.[4]
The second cause of action, denominated â€
| Description | A civil law decision on Damages. |
| Rating |
