incorporation lawyer

Plaintiff insurer sued defendant insureds for reimbursement
of legal fees and a declaration as to its duty to defend a third party action.
The insureds cross-complained for malicious prosecution and breach of contract
and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A jury of the Superior
Court of Sacramento County, California, awarded the insureds $ 637,911 in
compensatory damages and $ 2,015,000 in punitive damages. The insurer appealed.  The incorporation
lawyer helps business person in litigations.

The insureds were a business, its owner, and his wife, and
the underlying action alleged that the company's negligent installation of
glass caused property damage. The reviewing court held that the insurer had a
duty to defend the wife, even though she was not named in the underlying suit,
because there was a possibility that she would become legally obligated to pay
damages under community estate statutes; thus, she had standing to sue for
breach. The genuine dispute doctrine did not require reversal of the bad faith
and punitive damage awards because the putative disputes regarding the duty to
defend were only relevant as to the duty to indemnify. As to the punitive
damages award, the trial court properly gave the standard jury instruction and
allowed the jury to consider net worth but not comparable civil sanctions.
Finally, the award of $ 2,015,000 was not constitutionally excessive. The
punitive/compensatory ratio of 3.2-to-1 was within the constitutional limit; a
smaller award would have been a slap on the wrist, given the insurer's net worth
of $ 56,921,567; and the insurer's conduct, including stalling and scare
tactics, was moderately high on the reprehensibility scale.

The court affirmed the judgment.

Appellant, boyfriend of respondent, sought review of a jury
verdict from the Superior Court of Orange County, California, that found
respondent's services benefitted appellant's company, under the doctrine of
quantum meruit, in the amount of $ 84 million.

Appellant boyfriend and respondent girlfriend held
themselves out as a married couple, respondent used appellant's name, they
lived together and worked together at appellant's company. The value of the
company increased during the 20 years they worked together, in part due to
respondent's efforts. Respondent filed suit upon the breakup and sued,
alleging, among other things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and
quantum meruit. The trial court's instructions allowed the jury to award
respondent $ 84 million, which the appellant contested. The court reversed and
remanded because the lower court had given instructions that led the jury to
improperly value the benefit of respondent's services to the company rather
than determine the value of the services under quantum meruit. Respondent had
attempted to show the existence of an implied-in-fact contract that would have
given her some equity in the company but the jury instructions did not
accurately convey the law, the court held. Further, the court held that there
could be no breach of fiduciary duty since the jury found there was no contract
that appellant would share the business with respondent.

The court reversed and remanded because the trial court
improperly instructed the jury as to the definition of quantum meruit as well
as the elements of an implied-in-fact contract.