This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Bad Faith
Coverage Denied

American Recovery Service Inc. v. R.L. Spear Company Inc.

Published: Apr. 24, 2010 | Result Date: Apr. 7, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: LC084272 Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Van Nuys


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Brian P. McGurk
(Michael & Associates PC)


Defendant

David E. Romley


Facts

Defendant R.L. Spear Company Inc., was an auctioneering firm with sales offices and warehouse facilities in Los Angeles, Taft, and Hayward. It carried workers' compensation insurance through State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for the years 2004 and 2005.

SCIF assessed premiums for those years, which defendant paid. Subsequent to the policy periods, SCIF conducted an audit of defendant's payroll and determined that defendant owed additional premiums totaling $52,000 on the ground certain of its employees were warehousemen as opposed to office workers. Defendant refused to pay the additional premiums.

SCIF assigned its claim for workers' compensation insurance premiums to American Recovery Service Inc. and suit was filed to collect the additional assessed premiums.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended its assignor, SCIF, had conducted an audit and had properly determined that certain employees of defendant were warehouse workers, as opposed to office workers, and that the premiums for warehouse workers were higher, resulting in $52,000 in additional premiums that were due.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
R.L. Spear disagreed with the results of the audit and contended that the employees in question were office workers, for whom correct premiums had been charged.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $52,000 and offered a payment schedule. Defendant offered $0.

Result

Defense.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Feb. 2, 2009.


#124231

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390