Appellant homeowner challenged a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County

 

Procedural Posture

Appellant homeowner challenged a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered summary judgment in favor of respondent insurer in connection with the homeowner's action alleging that she had entered into a settlement under duress and due to fraudulent misrepresentations, and that her claim had been revived by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.9.

 

Overview: Consult experienced Los Angeles business Lawyers

After negotiating a settlement and executing a full release, the homeowner filed her action. The trial court found that (1) the homeowner had not presented evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on her claims of duress and fraud, and (2) Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.9 was a revivor statute that served only to overcome any time limitations defense the insurer might have had, but it did not operate to revive a claim that had been extinguished by a validly executed release. On appeal, the court affirmed. The insurer never asserted a time limitation defense. The defense of prior settlement and release was not affected by the operation of § 340.9. The homeowner showed no fraud or duress, and thus the settlement was enforceable and was a complete defense to the homeowner's action even though she did not have counsel and the written agreement was not signed by California counsel. The homeowner's objection to the insurer's evidentiary showing was without merit. Cal. Evid. Code § 1271 required only that a custodian or other qualified witness identify the documents. Furthermore, there was no dispute about the documents on which the trial court relied.

 

Outcome

The court affirmed.