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
Breach of Contract

Victoria Keseyan v. Deerbrook Insurance Company

Published: Feb. 25, 2006 | Result Date: Feb. 3, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: EC040833 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Laura A. Matz

Court

L.A. Superior Glendale


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Grace White


Defendant

Michael M. Pollak
(Pollak, Vida & Barer)

Anna L. Birenbaum
(Pollak, Vida & Barer)


Facts

On Feb. 9, 2003, plaintiff Victoria Keseyan purchased a Jaguar for $38,000. She insured her car with defendant Deerbrook. Two and a half months later, she and her husband filed a Chapter 7 brankruptcy. The bankruptcy petition disclosed a Toyota, but did not disclose the Jaguar. One month later, the plaintiff reported the Jaguar stolen. A few days later, the plaintiff signed a Deerbrook theft affidavit under the penalty of perjury in which she denied ever having filed bankruptcy. Deerbrook denied the claim on grounds that, among other things, the theft did not occur and the plaintiff made many intentional, material misrepresentations to Deerbrook.

The plaintiff sued Deerbrook for breach of contract and bad faith. Deerbrook moved for summary judgment on the ground that only the plaintiff's Chapter 7 trustee had standing; that the plaintiff was judicially estopped from prosecuting the case based on having concealed the Jaguar in her bankruptcy papers; and the plaintiff's intentional, material misrepresentations voided her claim.

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff submitted a declaration stating that she did not list the Jaguar and a truck she and her husband owned because she did not want the vehicles repossessed and because she "like(s) Jaguars." Judicial estoppel should not apply because it would be unfair.

Result

Summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the plaintiff's lack of standing and based on judicial estoppel.


#81525

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

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