Preview
1 Darin T. Judd, SBN 160475
Eric D. McFarland, SBN 214245
2 David Truong, SBN 306830
THOMPSON WELCH SOROKO & GILBERT LLP
3 3950 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300
San Rafael, CA 94903
4 Telephone: (415) 448-5000
Facsimile: (415) 448-5010
5 Email: darin@twsglaw.com
Email: emcfarland@twsglaw.com
6 Email: david@twsglaw.com
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
RMB Real Estate Investments 2, LLC
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SONOMA
11
RMB REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 2, LLC, Case No. SCV-267840
12 a California limited liability company,
13 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
14 v.
15 CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE
COMPANY and DOES 1-7,
16
Defendants.
17
18 This action came on regularly for trial on November 17, 2023, in Courtroom 17, Superior Court
19 of Sonoma County, the Honorable Bradford DeMeo presiding. The plaintiff RMB Real Estate
20 Investments 2, LLC appeared by attorneys from Thompson Welch Soroko & Gilbert, LLP, including
21 Darin T. Judd, Eric D. McFarland, and David Truong. The defendant California Capital Insurance
22 Company appearing by attorneys Gladstone Weisberg, ALC by Gene A. Weisberg and Anthony DiPietra.
23 A jury was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the
24 evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted
25 to the jury with instructions to return special verdicts. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned to the
26 Court with its special verdicts, which verdicts were in words and figures as follows:
27
28 -1-
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840
1
2 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on
3 the question submitted to us:
4 VF-2300. Breach of Contractual Duty to Pay a Covered Claim
5 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
6 l. Did RMB Real Estate Investments 2 suffer a loss, part of which was covered
7 under an insurance policy with California Capital Insurance Company?
8 X Yes __ No
9 If your answer to question l is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no,
10 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
11 this form.
12 2. Was California Capital Insurance Company notified of the loss as required by the
13 policy?
14 X Yes __ No
15 If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no,
16 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
17 this form.
18 3. Was there any portion of the loss the policy covered that California Capital failed
19 to pay?
20 X Yes __ No
21 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no,
22 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
23 this form.
24 4. What is the amount 0f the covered loss that California Capital Insurance
25 Company failed to pay RMB Real Estate Investments 2?
26 $1,947,235
27
28 -2-
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840
1
2
3 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on the
question submitted to us:
4
5
VF-2301. Breach of the Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—
6
Failure or Delay in Payment
7
8 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
9 1. Did RMB Real Estate Investments 2 suffer a loss covered under an insurance
10 policy with California Capital Insurance Company?
11 X Yes __ No
12 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no,
13 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
14 this form.
15 2. Was California Capital Insurance Company notified of the loss?
16 X Yes __ No
If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no,
17
stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
18
this form.
19
3. Did California Capital Insurance Company fail to pay policy benefits that the
20
policy covered?
21
X Yes __ No
22
If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no,
23
stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
24
this form.
25
4. Was California Capital Insurance Company’s failure to pay policy benefits,
26
unreasonable or without proper cause?
27
28 -3-
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840
1 X Yes __ No
2 If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5 if you answered no,
3 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
4 this form.
5 5. Was California Capital Insurance Company’s failure to pay policy benefits a
6 substantial factor in causing harm to RMB Real Estate Investments 2?
7 X Yes __ No
8
9
10 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on
11 the question submitted to us:
12 VF-3900. Punitive Damages
13 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
14 l. Did California Capital Insurance Company engage in conduct with malice,
15 oppression, or fraud?
16 X Yes __ No
17
18
WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on the
19
question submitted to us:
20
VF-2301-A. Breach of the Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—
21
Failure or Delay in Payment
22
23 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
24 l. Did RMB Real Estate Investments 2 suffer a loss covered under an insurance
25 policy with California Capital Insurance Company?
26 X Yes __ No
27 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no,
28 -4-
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840
1 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
2 this form.
3 2. Was California Capital Insurance Company notified of the loss?
4 X Yes __ No
5 If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no,
6 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
7 this form.
8 3. Did California Capital Insurance Company fail to pay policy benefits?
9 X Yes __ No
10 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no,
11 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
12 this form.
13 4. Was California Capital Insurance Company’s failure to pay policy benefits,
14 unreasonable or without proper cause?
15 X Yes __ No
16 If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5 if you answered no,
17 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
18 this form.
19 5. Was California Capital Insurance Company’s failure to pay policy benefits a
20 substantial factor in causing harm to RMB Real Estate Investments 2?
21 X Yes __ No
22 If your answer to question 5 is yes, then answer question 6. If you answered no,
23 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date
24 this form.
25 6. What are RMB Real Estate Investments 2’s damages?
26 a. Attorney Fees $304,822
27 7. Should prejudgment interest be awarded to RMB Real Estate Investment 2, LLC?
28 -5-
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840
1 X Yes __ No
2 8. What amount of prejudgment interest do you award to Plaintiff RMB Real Estate
3 Investment 2, LLC? $74,945.72
4 TOTAL: $379,767.72
5
6
7 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on
8 the question submitted to us:
9 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
10 VF-3900-A. Punitive Damages—Bifurcated Trail (sic)
11 1. Did California Capital Insurance Company engage in conduct with malice,
12 oppression, or fraud?
13 X Yes __ No
14 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, stop
15 here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
2. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award RMB Real Estate
16
Investments 2, LLC? $6,500,000
17
18
19
Plaintiff also made a motion to the Court for prejudgment interest on the $1,947,235 in
20
contract loss. The Court added the amount of __________________________ to the judgment for
21
such prejudgment interest on the contract loss.
22
It appearing by reason of said verdicts that plaintiff RMB REAL ESTATE
23
INVESTMENTS 2, LLC is entitled to judgment against defendant CALIFORNIA CAPITAL
24
INSURANCE COMPANY.
25
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff RMB
26
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 2, LLC have and recover from defendant CALIFORNIA CAPITAL
27
28 -6-
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840
1 INSURANCE COMPANY the sum of eight million eight hundred twenty-seven thousand and two
2 dollars and seventy-two cents ($8,827,002.72) plus the amount of _____________________________
3 in prejudgment interest on the contract loss, for a total in the amount of
4 __________________________________________, with interest on the entire judgment at the rate of
5 ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of entry of this judgment until paid, together with costs and
6 disbursements in the amount of __________________________ dollars ($__________).
7
Dated: ____________________, 2024
8
9
10 _________________________________________
Bradford DeMeo
11
Judge of the Superior Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -7-
JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840
Preview
1 Darin T. Judd, SBN 160475 Eric D. McFarland, SBN 214245 2 David Truong, SBN 306830 THOMPSON WELCH SOROKO & GILBERT LLP 3 3950 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300 San Rafael, CA 94903 4 Telephone: (415) 448-5000 Facsimile: (415) 448-5010 5 Email: darin@twsglaw.com Email: emcfarland@twsglaw.com 6 Email: david@twsglaw.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff RMB Real Estate Investments 2, LLC 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SONOMA 11 RMB REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 2, LLC, Case No. SCV-267840 12 a California limited liability company, 13 Plaintiff, JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT 14 v. 15 CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1-7, 16 Defendants. 17 18 This action came on regularly for trial on November 17, 2023, in Courtroom 17, Superior Court 19 of Sonoma County, the Honorable Bradford DeMeo presiding. The plaintiff RMB Real Estate 20 Investments 2, LLC appeared by attorneys from Thompson Welch Soroko & Gilbert, LLP, including 21 Darin T. Judd, Eric D. McFarland, and David Truong. The defendant California Capital Insurance 22 Company appearing by attorneys Gladstone Weisberg, ALC by Gene A. Weisberg and Anthony DiPietra. 23 A jury was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the 24 evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted 25 to the jury with instructions to return special verdicts. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned to the 26 Court with its special verdicts, which verdicts were in words and figures as follows: 27 28 -1- JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840 1 2 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on 3 the question submitted to us: 4 VF-2300. Breach of Contractual Duty to Pay a Covered Claim 5 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 6 l. Did RMB Real Estate Investments 2 suffer a loss, part of which was covered 7 under an insurance policy with California Capital Insurance Company? 8 X Yes __ No 9 If your answer to question l is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, 10 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 11 this form. 12 2. Was California Capital Insurance Company notified of the loss as required by the 13 policy? 14 X Yes __ No 15 If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, 16 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 17 this form. 18 3. Was there any portion of the loss the policy covered that California Capital failed 19 to pay? 20 X Yes __ No 21 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no, 22 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 23 this form. 24 4. What is the amount 0f the covered loss that California Capital Insurance 25 Company failed to pay RMB Real Estate Investments 2? 26 $1,947,235 27 28 -2- JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840 1 2 3 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on the question submitted to us: 4 5 VF-2301. Breach of the Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing— 6 Failure or Delay in Payment 7 8 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 9 1. Did RMB Real Estate Investments 2 suffer a loss covered under an insurance 10 policy with California Capital Insurance Company? 11 X Yes __ No 12 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, 13 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 14 this form. 15 2. Was California Capital Insurance Company notified of the loss? 16 X Yes __ No If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, 17 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 18 this form. 19 3. Did California Capital Insurance Company fail to pay policy benefits that the 20 policy covered? 21 X Yes __ No 22 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no, 23 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 24 this form. 25 4. Was California Capital Insurance Company’s failure to pay policy benefits, 26 unreasonable or without proper cause? 27 28 -3- JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840 1 X Yes __ No 2 If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5 if you answered no, 3 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 4 this form. 5 5. Was California Capital Insurance Company’s failure to pay policy benefits a 6 substantial factor in causing harm to RMB Real Estate Investments 2? 7 X Yes __ No 8 9 10 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on 11 the question submitted to us: 12 VF-3900. Punitive Damages 13 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 14 l. Did California Capital Insurance Company engage in conduct with malice, 15 oppression, or fraud? 16 X Yes __ No 17 18 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on the 19 question submitted to us: 20 VF-2301-A. Breach of the Implied Obligation of Good Faith and Fair Dealing— 21 Failure or Delay in Payment 22 23 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 24 l. Did RMB Real Estate Investments 2 suffer a loss covered under an insurance 25 policy with California Capital Insurance Company? 26 X Yes __ No 27 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, 28 -4- JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840 1 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 2 this form. 3 2. Was California Capital Insurance Company notified of the loss? 4 X Yes __ No 5 If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, 6 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 7 this form. 8 3. Did California Capital Insurance Company fail to pay policy benefits? 9 X Yes __ No 10 If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no, 11 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 12 this form. 13 4. Was California Capital Insurance Company’s failure to pay policy benefits, 14 unreasonable or without proper cause? 15 X Yes __ No 16 If your answer to question 4 is yes, then answer question 5 if you answered no, 17 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 18 this form. 19 5. Was California Capital Insurance Company’s failure to pay policy benefits a 20 substantial factor in causing harm to RMB Real Estate Investments 2? 21 X Yes __ No 22 If your answer to question 5 is yes, then answer question 6. If you answered no, 23 stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 24 this form. 25 6. What are RMB Real Estate Investments 2’s damages? 26 a. Attorney Fees $304,822 27 7. Should prejudgment interest be awarded to RMB Real Estate Investment 2, LLC? 28 -5- JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840 1 X Yes __ No 2 8. What amount of prejudgment interest do you award to Plaintiff RMB Real Estate 3 Investment 2, LLC? $74,945.72 4 TOTAL: $379,767.72 5 6 7 WE THE JURY in the above entitled action find the following Special Verdict on 8 the question submitted to us: 9 We answer the questions submitted to us as follows: 10 VF-3900-A. Punitive Damages—Bifurcated Trail (sic) 11 1. Did California Capital Insurance Company engage in conduct with malice, 12 oppression, or fraud? 13 X Yes __ No 14 If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, stop 15 here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form. 2. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award RMB Real Estate 16 Investments 2, LLC? $6,500,000 17 18 19 Plaintiff also made a motion to the Court for prejudgment interest on the $1,947,235 in 20 contract loss. The Court added the amount of __________________________ to the judgment for 21 such prejudgment interest on the contract loss. 22 It appearing by reason of said verdicts that plaintiff RMB REAL ESTATE 23 INVESTMENTS 2, LLC is entitled to judgment against defendant CALIFORNIA CAPITAL 24 INSURANCE COMPANY. 25 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff RMB 26 REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 2, LLC have and recover from defendant CALIFORNIA CAPITAL 27 28 -6- JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840 1 INSURANCE COMPANY the sum of eight million eight hundred twenty-seven thousand and two 2 dollars and seventy-two cents ($8,827,002.72) plus the amount of _____________________________ 3 in prejudgment interest on the contract loss, for a total in the amount of 4 __________________________________________, with interest on the entire judgment at the rate of 5 ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of entry of this judgment until paid, together with costs and 6 disbursements in the amount of __________________________ dollars ($__________). 7 Dated: ____________________, 2024 8 9 10 _________________________________________ Bradford DeMeo 11 Judge of the Superior Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT CASE NO. SCV-267840