Preview
JOHN E. PEER - State Bar No. 95978
KATYA. NELSON - State
WOOLLS 85 PEER
A Professional Corporation
Bar No. 173759
F j[LKD
SAIV MQTFp gpUg~
One Wilshire Boulevard, 22 Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017 JUN 5 20/3
Telephone: (213) 629-1600
Facsimile: (213) 629-1660 Clef I
3y
Attorneys for Defendants >- UTYW~y
6 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CENTRAL BRANCH
10
11 MICHAELCHANG, an individual, Case No.: CIV 489065
12 Plaintiff,
DECLARATIONOF JOHN E. PEER IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRIAL
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CONTINUANCE
FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK
5 )i)is INSUIMNCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal
insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99,
inter-
Inclusive,
Hearing
Thnei,
Date: July?A, 2013
9:00 am.
16 Dept.: PJLM
) Defendants.
17 Trial Date: August 26, 2013
Discovery Cut-off: July 26, 2013
18 Motion Cut-off: August 12, 2013
Complaint Filed: 'ctober 28, 2009
19
20 BY FAX
I John E. Peer declare that:
21
l. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before the Courts of the State of California,
22
and I am a shareholder with the law firm of Woolls 4 Peer, APC, attorneys for defendants Farmers
23
Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange (collectively "Farmers" ) in the abovewntitled
24
action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called to testify with respect
25
thereto, I could and would do so competently and under oath.
26
2. Although my firm only recently became counsel of record for Farmers in this action,
27
my firm has obtained a copy of the entire file for the action, including all pleadings, discovery and
28
HUNTED ON RECYCU?D PAPER
DECLARATIONOF JOHN E. PEER
346436.I
correspondence generated and exchanged by the parties. I am familiar with the facts and the history
2 of this litigation.
3. In February 2013, defendants moved for a continuance of the trialon the grounds
4 that, among other reasons, the underlying liability action, Kartal v. Chang, Case No. CIV 458146,
5 needed to be tried before the coverage action. At that time, the Kartal trial was set for March 13,
6 2013. The court granted defendants'otion to continue the trial, continuing the trial to August 26,
7 2013, with a mandatory settlement conference set for August 7, 2013.
4. Shortly after the trial of this matter was continued to August 26, 2013, the court in the
9 Kartal action, at the request of the parties, continued that trial which is not scheduled to commence
on the same date as this action (August 26, 2013), albeit in a different courtroom.
5. By letter dated April 24, 2013, Farmers agreed to participate in the defense of
12 Michael Chang in the underlying action entitled Kartal v. Chang, San Mateo County Superior Court
5 )~ 13 Case No. CIV 458146, and to pay outstanding past defense costs. As an attorney representing
14 Farmers with regard to this matter, I was provided with a copy of the April 24, 2013 letter by which
) reimburse unpaid defense expenses in the agreed to
Farmers agreed to defend Chang and to past
0< )16 amount of $ 147,758.60, include a copy of a check in that amount made payable to Mr. Chang. A
true and correct copy of that correspondence is attached as Exhibit l.
18 6. Farmers is continuing to defend Mr. Chang under a reservation of rights, as stated in
19 the April 24, 2013 letter.
20 7. The ultimate facts regarding how the environmental loss occurred should be
21 determined in the underlying Kartal action. The trier of fact also must determine which party or
22 parties actually are liable for the pollution and resulting losses at the property.
23 8. In the instant action, the trier of fact will be asked to apply the language of Mr.
24 Chang's insurance policies to the facts and liabilitiesthat are determined in the Kartal action.
25 Accordingly, trial and final adjudication of the underlying Kartal action will assist the resolution of
26 the ultimate facts that must be proven in this case, and therefore be directly relevant to proving or
disproving plaintiff's coverage and bad faith claims at trial. On the other hand, ifthe underlying trial
28 is not yet completed when this matter proceeds to trial, the parties will have no choice but to
PRINTED ON RECYClRD PAPER
DECLARATIONOF JOHN E. PEER
346436. I
1 speculate regarding what might happen in the Kartal action, for example, whether Mr. Chang will be
2 held liable to Mr. Kartal and for what. At trial, Mr. Chang will demand indemnification for damages
3 amounts that are purely speculative for unknown liabilities based on legal theories that have not yet
4 been proven in the underlying action.
9. I am unaware of any substantial prejudice that would result to plaintiffor his counsel
6 ifthe trial is continued in this matter for a three month period.
10. On Friday, June 21, 2013, at about 2 pm, I spoke to Gregg Garrison and Herman
8 Kalfen, counsel for plaintiff, by telephone. I informed Mr. Garrison and Mr. Kalfen that Farmers
9 intended to seek a trial continuance because Farmers believes that Mr. Chang's claims cannot be
10 fully adjudicated until the trial in the underlying action is completed. Mr. Garrison and Mr. Kalfen
11 advised me that they will not agree to any continuance and they intended to oppose the motion.
12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
~A )~ 13 is true and correct.
AS, I
Ii) ) 14 Executed on June 24, 2013, atLos Angeles, California.
~i Il" I5
O
JOHN E. PEER
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
DECLARATIONOF JOHN E. PEER
346436.
I
X. 11 311.
X. 11 311.
aravan IL ttrrran
omcrniAL: (sts>ss0-mo GORDON 6T REES LLP
AttoRNsvs At Law
101Wssr Baoaowav
Surrs 1600
SAN Deco, CA 92101
PHONs: (6191 6966700
F
Preview
JOHN E. PEER - State Bar No. 95978 KATYA. NELSON - State WOOLLS 85 PEER A Professional Corporation Bar No. 173759 F j[LKD SAIV MQTFp gpUg~ One Wilshire Boulevard, 22 Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 JUN 5 20/3 Telephone: (213) 629-1600 Facsimile: (213) 629-1660 Clef I 3y Attorneys for Defendants >- UTYW~y 6 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CENTRAL BRANCH 10 11 MICHAELCHANG, an individual, Case No.: CIV 489065 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATIONOF JOHN E. PEER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRIAL FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., CONTINUANCE FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND TRUCK 5 )i)is INSUIMNCE EXCHANGE, reciprocal insurance exchanges; Does 1 to 99, inter- Inclusive, Hearing Thnei, Date: July?A, 2013 9:00 am. 16 Dept.: PJLM ) Defendants. 17 Trial Date: August 26, 2013 Discovery Cut-off: July 26, 2013 18 Motion Cut-off: August 12, 2013 Complaint Filed: 'ctober 28, 2009 19 20 BY FAX I John E. Peer declare that: 21 l. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before the Courts of the State of California, 22 and I am a shareholder with the law firm of Woolls 4 Peer, APC, attorneys for defendants Farmers 23 Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange (collectively "Farmers" ) in the abovewntitled 24 action. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called to testify with respect 25 thereto, I could and would do so competently and under oath. 26 2. Although my firm only recently became counsel of record for Farmers in this action, 27 my firm has obtained a copy of the entire file for the action, including all pleadings, discovery and 28 HUNTED ON RECYCU?D PAPER DECLARATIONOF JOHN E. PEER 346436.I correspondence generated and exchanged by the parties. I am familiar with the facts and the history 2 of this litigation. 3. In February 2013, defendants moved for a continuance of the trialon the grounds 4 that, among other reasons, the underlying liability action, Kartal v. Chang, Case No. CIV 458146, 5 needed to be tried before the coverage action. At that time, the Kartal trial was set for March 13, 6 2013. The court granted defendants'otion to continue the trial, continuing the trial to August 26, 7 2013, with a mandatory settlement conference set for August 7, 2013. 4. Shortly after the trial of this matter was continued to August 26, 2013, the court in the 9 Kartal action, at the request of the parties, continued that trial which is not scheduled to commence on the same date as this action (August 26, 2013), albeit in a different courtroom. 5. By letter dated April 24, 2013, Farmers agreed to participate in the defense of 12 Michael Chang in the underlying action entitled Kartal v. Chang, San Mateo County Superior Court 5 )~ 13 Case No. CIV 458146, and to pay outstanding past defense costs. As an attorney representing 14 Farmers with regard to this matter, I was provided with a copy of the April 24, 2013 letter by which ) reimburse unpaid defense expenses in the agreed to Farmers agreed to defend Chang and to past 0< )16 amount of $ 147,758.60, include a copy of a check in that amount made payable to Mr. Chang. A true and correct copy of that correspondence is attached as Exhibit l. 18 6. Farmers is continuing to defend Mr. Chang under a reservation of rights, as stated in 19 the April 24, 2013 letter. 20 7. The ultimate facts regarding how the environmental loss occurred should be 21 determined in the underlying Kartal action. The trier of fact also must determine which party or 22 parties actually are liable for the pollution and resulting losses at the property. 23 8. In the instant action, the trier of fact will be asked to apply the language of Mr. 24 Chang's insurance policies to the facts and liabilitiesthat are determined in the Kartal action. 25 Accordingly, trial and final adjudication of the underlying Kartal action will assist the resolution of 26 the ultimate facts that must be proven in this case, and therefore be directly relevant to proving or disproving plaintiff's coverage and bad faith claims at trial. On the other hand, ifthe underlying trial 28 is not yet completed when this matter proceeds to trial, the parties will have no choice but to PRINTED ON RECYClRD PAPER DECLARATIONOF JOHN E. PEER 346436. I 1 speculate regarding what might happen in the Kartal action, for example, whether Mr. Chang will be 2 held liable to Mr. Kartal and for what. At trial, Mr. Chang will demand indemnification for damages 3 amounts that are purely speculative for unknown liabilities based on legal theories that have not yet 4 been proven in the underlying action. 9. I am unaware of any substantial prejudice that would result to plaintiffor his counsel 6 ifthe trial is continued in this matter for a three month period. 10. On Friday, June 21, 2013, at about 2 pm, I spoke to Gregg Garrison and Herman 8 Kalfen, counsel for plaintiff, by telephone. I informed Mr. Garrison and Mr. Kalfen that Farmers 9 intended to seek a trial continuance because Farmers believes that Mr. Chang's claims cannot be 10 fully adjudicated until the trial in the underlying action is completed. Mr. Garrison and Mr. Kalfen 11 advised me that they will not agree to any continuance and they intended to oppose the motion. 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing ~A )~ 13 is true and correct. AS, I Ii) ) 14 Executed on June 24, 2013, atLos Angeles, California. ~i Il" I5 O JOHN E. PEER 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER DECLARATIONOF JOHN E. PEER 346436. I X. 11 311. X. 11 311. aravan IL ttrrran omcrniAL: (sts>ss0-mo GORDON 6T REES LLP AttoRNsvs At Law 101Wssr Baoaowav Surrs 1600 SAN Deco, CA 92101 PHONs: (6191 6966700 F