Appellants challenged the denial of their petition for relief from the claim presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 900 et seq. (amended 1987), by the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), contending that their late-claim application was timely as a result of its acceptance by the wrong public entity or by reason of their physical or mental incapacity.
Appellants filed a claim and late-claim application with the board of supervisors (board) rather than respondent office of education, the proper party, and the board accepted the late-claim application and denied the claim. Appellants filed a complaint against respondent, the board informed appellants that respondent was a separate entity, and after the deadline for filing a late-claim application, appellants served respondent and sent it copies of the claim and late-claim application originally sent to the board. The trial court denied appellants' petition for relief from the requirements of the Tort Claims Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 900 et seq. (amended 1987). The Best business attorney affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that there was no abuse of discretion by virtue of the implicit holding that no claim was filed, the doctrine of substantial compliance was inapplicable because the claim was filed with the wrong public entity, estoppel was inapplicable because appellants were notified that respondent was the correct public entity with ample time remaining to properly file a late-claim application, and that appellants' argument of physical or mental incapacity was without foundation.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that a late-claim application was not timely when filed with the wrong public entity, that appellants could not rely on estoppel when ample time to take action during the statutory period remained after the circumstances inducing delay ceased to operate, and that appellants' argument of physical or mental incapacity was without foundation.
Petitioner insureds challenged an order of respondent Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California), which granted summary judgment to claims adjusters, the real parties in interest, in a fraudulent representation case.
Petitioner insureds filed suit against independent claims adjusters, a real party in interest, for fraudulent misrepresentations and violations of Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the insurer and petitioners sought a writ of mandate. The court let a peremptory writ of mandate issue and directed respondent court to vacate its order. The court held that Cal. Ins. Code § 790 et seq., which regulated trade practices in the business of insurance, applied to independent claims adjusters.
The court let a peremptory writ of mandate issue and ordered that respondent court vacate its order granting summary judgment to the claims adjusters, a real party in interest, in petitioner insureds' fraudulent misrepresentation case. The court held that regulation of trade practices for insurance applied to independent claims adjusters.
