Preview
t
Lee J. Danforth, Esq. —SBN 73695
Carrie Dupic Huynh, Esq. —SBN 240252
2 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH
A Professional Corporation, Lawyers
FILED
SA ATEOOOU
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 , AN 2013
4 Telephone: (650) 592-5400
Cl e QMpedor Cog/
Facsimile: (650) 592-5027
5 8$ -
oIPQTVOLRRK
ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants
6 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE
7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
MICHAELCHANG, an individual, Case No. CIV 489065
12 Plaintiff,
DECLARATION OF LEE J. DANFORTH IN
vs. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'OTION FOR
TRIALCONTINUANCE
14 FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS D,t,. @~ (, WL3
15 INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK Time: g:ob t w.
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal inter- Dept.:
16 insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, Inclusive, p$
Trial Date: April 8, 2013
17 Defendants.
18
19 I, Lee J. Danforth, declare that:
20 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before the Courts of the State of California,
21 and I am a member with the law firm of Coddington, Hicks & Danforth, attorneys for defendants
22 Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange in the above-entitled action. I make this
23 declaration on behalf of said defendants. I have personal knowledge of the facts.stated herein and if
24 called to testify with respect thereto, I could and would do so competently and under oath.
25 2. In the interest of conserving resources, and believing that the policy specifically
26 excluded coverage for the claims, defendants conducted no discovery during the seventeen months of
27 proceedings in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal concerning defendants'ispositive motions.
28 During that timce period, my office received no discovery requests from plaintiff's counsel, either.
1
Declaration of Lee t. Danforth in Support of Defendants'otion for Trial Continuance
Case No: CIV 489065
3. Settlement talks to date have not been successful.
2 4. This case isset for trial on April 8, 2013, with a mandatory settlement conference set for
3 March 21, 2013. The parties have not previously requested a trial continuance in this matter.
4 5. Extensive additional discovery must be completed to prepare for trial on plaintiff's
5 causes of action for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. Necessary discovery will include:
6 detailed interrogatories, requests for admission and production requests concerning plaintiff's factual
7 contentions, coverage theories and damages claims; depositions of parties and percipient witnesses (eg.,
8 Mr. Chang and Mr. I&rtal); and expert discovery regarding the causes of the loss at the property, the
9 sequence of events giving rise to the loss, the costs of remediation of the property estimated by plaintiff
10 at $ 6 million, and other environmental, engineering and insurance coverage issues.
11 6. It is my understanding, based on conversations with attorneys of record in the
12 underlying action, Kartal v. Chang, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 458146, that much
13 of the technical discovery regarding the facts of the underlying loss is being conducted in that case and
14 those issues will be resolved in a trial of that case.
15 7. The evidence developed through discovery and trial in the Kartal action (eg.',testimony
16 of the landlord and tenant about their claims, testimony and documents regarding when and how the
17 loss occurred, who was liable for the damage, and the costs of repair) will have direct probative value in
18 this action regarding the facts of the underlying loss relevant to plaintiff's coverage and damages claims.
19 8. More importantly, the ultimate facts regarding how the environmental loss occurred will
20 be determined in the underlying action when the trier of fact finds who is liable for the pollution mess
21 and resulting losses at the property. In the instant action, the trierof fact will be asked to apply the
22 terms of Mr. Chang's insurance policies to the facts of the loss as determined in the Kartal action.
23 Thus, by definition, trial and hnal adjudication of the underlying Kan'al action will be essential to the
24 ultimate facts that must be proven in this case, and which will be directly relevant to proving plaintiffs
25 coverage and bad faith claims at trial.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
Declaration of Lee J.Danforth in Support of Defendants'otion for Trial Continuance
Case No: CIV 489065
1 9. Deferring trial in this action until after the underlying action is resolved will result in the
2 savings of party and court resources because duplicative discovery will be avoided; a "trial within a
3 trial" will be unnecessary because the parties will be able to rely on the facts of loss as they are
4 adjudicated in the underlying action; and speculation will be avoided regarding plaintiffs damages
5 claims.
6 10. I am the lead trial attorney in this action for defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange
7 ("Farmers" ) and Truck Insurance Exchange ("Truck").
8 11. In November 2012, I instructed my associate, Carrie Dupic Huynh, to contact plaintiffs
9 counsel to request a stipulation to continue the trial datein this action. Ms. Huynh has advised me that
10 counsel declined this request.
11 12. Until recently, I anticipated that the underlying action in Karta/ would be settled or
12 would go to trial. Following the Court of Appeal's October 30, 2012 denial of defendants'etition for
13 writ of mandate, and following my office's unsuccessful effort to obtain a stipulation from plaintiff to
14 continue the trial in this action, now is the firstreasonable opportunity to bring this motion to the
15 Court for a continuance of the trial date in this matter because of the press of other business and the
16 Christmas holidays.
17 13. This motion to continue trialis not brought for any improper purpose (eg., to seek
18 tactical advantage, to delay justice or to complete discovery that should have been completed long ago).
19 14. I am unaware of any prejudice that would result to plaintiff or his counsel if the trial is
20 continued in this matter.
21 I declare under of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
22 correct. Executed on January 18, 2013, at Redwood City, California.
23
24
25 Lee J. Danforth
26
27
28
3
Declaration of Lee J.Danforth in Support of Defendants'otion for Trial Continuance
Case No: CIV 489065
Preview
t Lee J. Danforth, Esq. —SBN 73695 Carrie Dupic Huynh, Esq. —SBN 240252 2 CODDINGTON, HICKS & DANFORTH A Professional Corporation, Lawyers FILED SA ATEOOOU 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94065-2133 , AN 2013 4 Telephone: (650) 592-5400 Cl e QMpedor Cog/ Facsimile: (650) 592-5027 5 8$ - oIPQTVOLRRK ATTORNEYS FOR Defendants 6 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 MICHAELCHANG, an individual, Case No. CIV 489065 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF LEE J. DANFORTH IN vs. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'OTION FOR TRIALCONTINUANCE 14 FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS D,t,. @~ (, WL3 15 INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK Time: g:ob t w. INSURANCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal inter- Dept.: 16 insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, Inclusive, p$ Trial Date: April 8, 2013 17 Defendants. 18 19 I, Lee J. Danforth, declare that: 20 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before the Courts of the State of California, 21 and I am a member with the law firm of Coddington, Hicks & Danforth, attorneys for defendants 22 Farmers Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange in the above-entitled action. I make this 23 declaration on behalf of said defendants. I have personal knowledge of the facts.stated herein and if 24 called to testify with respect thereto, I could and would do so competently and under oath. 25 2. In the interest of conserving resources, and believing that the policy specifically 26 excluded coverage for the claims, defendants conducted no discovery during the seventeen months of 27 proceedings in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal concerning defendants'ispositive motions. 28 During that timce period, my office received no discovery requests from plaintiff's counsel, either. 1 Declaration of Lee t. Danforth in Support of Defendants'otion for Trial Continuance Case No: CIV 489065 3. Settlement talks to date have not been successful. 2 4. This case isset for trial on April 8, 2013, with a mandatory settlement conference set for 3 March 21, 2013. The parties have not previously requested a trial continuance in this matter. 4 5. Extensive additional discovery must be completed to prepare for trial on plaintiff's 5 causes of action for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. Necessary discovery will include: 6 detailed interrogatories, requests for admission and production requests concerning plaintiff's factual 7 contentions, coverage theories and damages claims; depositions of parties and percipient witnesses (eg., 8 Mr. Chang and Mr. I&rtal); and expert discovery regarding the causes of the loss at the property, the 9 sequence of events giving rise to the loss, the costs of remediation of the property estimated by plaintiff 10 at $ 6 million, and other environmental, engineering and insurance coverage issues. 11 6. It is my understanding, based on conversations with attorneys of record in the 12 underlying action, Kartal v. Chang, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 458146, that much 13 of the technical discovery regarding the facts of the underlying loss is being conducted in that case and 14 those issues will be resolved in a trial of that case. 15 7. The evidence developed through discovery and trial in the Kartal action (eg.',testimony 16 of the landlord and tenant about their claims, testimony and documents regarding when and how the 17 loss occurred, who was liable for the damage, and the costs of repair) will have direct probative value in 18 this action regarding the facts of the underlying loss relevant to plaintiff's coverage and damages claims. 19 8. More importantly, the ultimate facts regarding how the environmental loss occurred will 20 be determined in the underlying action when the trier of fact finds who is liable for the pollution mess 21 and resulting losses at the property. In the instant action, the trierof fact will be asked to apply the 22 terms of Mr. Chang's insurance policies to the facts of the loss as determined in the Kartal action. 23 Thus, by definition, trial and hnal adjudication of the underlying Kan'al action will be essential to the 24 ultimate facts that must be proven in this case, and which will be directly relevant to proving plaintiffs 25 coverage and bad faith claims at trial. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 Declaration of Lee J.Danforth in Support of Defendants'otion for Trial Continuance Case No: CIV 489065 1 9. Deferring trial in this action until after the underlying action is resolved will result in the 2 savings of party and court resources because duplicative discovery will be avoided; a "trial within a 3 trial" will be unnecessary because the parties will be able to rely on the facts of loss as they are 4 adjudicated in the underlying action; and speculation will be avoided regarding plaintiffs damages 5 claims. 6 10. I am the lead trial attorney in this action for defendants Farmers Insurance Exchange 7 ("Farmers" ) and Truck Insurance Exchange ("Truck"). 8 11. In November 2012, I instructed my associate, Carrie Dupic Huynh, to contact plaintiffs 9 counsel to request a stipulation to continue the trial datein this action. Ms. Huynh has advised me that 10 counsel declined this request. 11 12. Until recently, I anticipated that the underlying action in Karta/ would be settled or 12 would go to trial. Following the Court of Appeal's October 30, 2012 denial of defendants'etition for 13 writ of mandate, and following my office's unsuccessful effort to obtain a stipulation from plaintiff to 14 continue the trial in this action, now is the firstreasonable opportunity to bring this motion to the 15 Court for a continuance of the trial date in this matter because of the press of other business and the 16 Christmas holidays. 17 13. This motion to continue trialis not brought for any improper purpose (eg., to seek 18 tactical advantage, to delay justice or to complete discovery that should have been completed long ago). 19 14. I am unaware of any prejudice that would result to plaintiff or his counsel if the trial is 20 continued in this matter. 21 I declare under of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and 22 correct. Executed on January 18, 2013, at Redwood City, California. 23 24 25 Lee J. Danforth 26 27 28 3 Declaration of Lee J.Danforth in Support of Defendants'otion for Trial Continuance Case No: CIV 489065