|
1902 If there was substantial evidence to support a jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages, a trial court abused its discretion by entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict on compensatory damages and striking the punitive damages claim, on the sole ground that it disagreed with the jury's finding; in an insurance bad faith action, a successful insured is entitled to attorney fees incurred in attempting to collect benefits from the insurer and the court abuses its discretion by refusing to award them; a court abuses its discretion in awarding sanctions against an attorney for making a non-frivolous claim based on a negligent assessment of its viability.
CAMPBELL v CAL-GARD (Theft Prevention Insurance) 62 CA4 563 [See: Teitel v First LA Bank 231 CA3 1593; Hughes v Blue Cross 215 CA3 832; Brandt v Superior Court 37 C3 813]
|
|
|