Bar's insurer pays damage claim when truck strikes building, sues drivers that caused accident. $158,000. San Diego County.

Summary

Truck crashes into cocktail lounge after colliding with auto. Cocktail lounge insurer pays damage claim, then sues drivers that caused the accident.

Case Name: California Fair Plan v. Foster and Snap-On
Court and Case Number: San Diego Superior Court / 37-2014-0008424-CU-PA-CTL
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Friday, May 29, 2015
Date Action was Filed: Monday, November 03, 2014
Type of Case: Insurance Subrogation, Recovery, Indemnity, Vehicles - Auto vs. Auto
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Joel Pressman
Plaintiffs:
California Fair Plan
Snap-On
Defendants:
Terence Foster
Snap-On
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

Gross Verdict or Award: $158,000.00 to Calfornia Fair Plan; $1,500.00 to Snap-On
Award as to each Defendant:
$158,000.00 against Snap-On; $1,500 against Foster.
Economic Damages:
All damages were economic.
Trial or Arbitration Time: 2 1/2 days.
Jury Deliberation Time: 6 hours.

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Espinosa & Espinosa by Daniel Espinosa and Cynthia Farias, Santa Ana.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Law Office of Bryce O Willett by Scott Laqua, San Diego.

Borton Petrini LLP by Paul Kissel, San Diego.

Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Ron Carr, accident reconstruction, San Diego.
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Steve Plourd, accident reconstruction, San Diego.

Ron Carr, accident reconstruction, San Diego.

Facts and Background:
On November 29, 2013 a Snap-On Tools truck collided with a car operated by defendant Foster in a center turn lane, propelling defendant Foster into the vehicle ahead while the truck veered to an angle, striking a fire hydrant and crashing into Pete's Cocktail Lounge. The cocktail lounge was insured by plaintiff California Fair Plan. California Fair Plan then sought subrogation against Snap-On and Foster. Snap-On sought damages for its vehicle and lost inventory, among other things.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That between Foster and Snap-On, someone was at fault., and plaintiff insurer was entitled to recover its costs to settle the claim.
Defendant's Contentions:
The other defendant was at fault.

Multiple verdict forms and levels of fault by defendants were involved.