Appellant attorneys sought a review of the decision by the Contra Costa County Superior Court (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of respondent insurance company on appellants’ cross-complaint for breach of insurance contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
A critical issue was undetermined because one party’s employment attorney San Diego was not present during evidentiary hearing. Appellant attorneys filed a cross-claim against respondent insurance company for breach of insurance contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Appellants left a law firm to form their own partnership and litigation ensued regarding a financial dispute that the split-up had caused. In connection with the lawsuit, two attorneys filed cross-claim alleging tortious constructive discharge and gender discrimination against appellants and their former law firm, appellants tendered the defense of the lawsuit to respondent, which had insured the law firm under a worker’s compensation and liability policy. The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for respondent, holding that appellants were not insured persons under the terms of the policy and consequently had no standing to maintain a suit for breach of contract or bad faith against the insurer. The only named insured under the policy was the law firm as a corporation and the fact that the corporation was named as the insured did not mean the corporation’s officers, directors, and employees were automatically additional insureds under the policy.
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent insurance company on appellants’ cross-complaint for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that the liability insurance which designated the corporation as the sole named insured precluded appellants from being insured persons under the policy and consequently had not standing to maintain their suit.
Plaintiff lessor sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Kern County (California), which denied the lessor’s action against defendants lessee and assignee for a forfeiture of an oil land lease.
The lessor leased oil land to the lessee and their assignee, with the lease provision that the lessee and assignee would construct two wells per year on the land until 16 wells had been constructed. Thirteen years after the beginning of the lease, the lessee and assignees had only constructed 13 wells. During the 13 years, the lessee and assignee had continued to pay, and the lessor continued to receive, royalty payments due under the lease. The lessor filed an action against the lessee and assignee for a forfeiture of the oil land lease. The lessee and assignee defended the action by asserting that the lessor waived his cause of action for the lessee and assignee’s breach of the lease when the lessor accepted the royalty payments when he knew that only 13 wells had been constructed. The trial court found that there had not been a breach of the lease and denied the lessor’s claim. The lessor sought review. The court found that the lessor waived his claim for the lessee and assignee’s breach when he accepted the payments, and subsequent failures of the lessor and assignee to comply with the lease did not give the lessor a right to a forfeiture of the lease.
The court affirmed the denial of the lessor’s claim.