Title: Jonathan Neil & Assoc. v. Jones

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

Filed 10/20/04 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
JONATHAN NEIL & ASSOCIATES, INC., 
Plaintiff and Appellant, 
 
 
v. 
FREDDIE JONES, 
Defendant, Cross-complainant and 
Appellant; 
MILDRED JONES et al., 
          Cross-complainants and Appellants. 
CAL-EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 
          Cross-defendant and Appellant; 
JOHNSEY INSURANCE COMPANY, 
          Cross-defendant and Respondent. 
 
 
S107855 
 
Ct.App. 5 F029400/F030300 
 
Fresno County 
Super. Ct. No. 0512318-7 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
 
The opinion in this case, filed on August 5, 2004 and appearing at 33 
Cal.4th 917, is modified as follows: 
 
1.  The third sentence in the second paragraph on page 925 is modified to 
read:  “In its original form, California’s rule 23 incorporated the generic, 
nationwide rule resulting in uncertainty concerning the way the rule applied in 
California.” 
 
2.  The first two sentences in footnote 2 on page 925 are modified to read:  
“Specifically, paragraph C of rule 23, as it existed at the time the Joneses’ policy 
was issued, provided two alternative methods of calculating premiums.  The first 
alternative provided that ‘[t]ruckers may be written on a specified car basis 
according to the Trucks, Tractors and Trailers Classification Rule.’ ” 
 
3.  The third sentence in the first full paragraph on page 927 is modified to 
read:  “Many insureds did not have the required detailed records readily available 
to establish their eligibility for the five criteria for excess coverage.” 
 
4.  The fourth sentence in the second full paragraph on page 927 is 
modified to read:  “It charged the Joneses an initial estimated annual premium of 
$14,088, based on the Joneses use of their own, specified vehicles in the 
business.” 
 
5.  The fourth sentence in the first full paragraph on page 928 is modified 
to read:  “After speaking with Mohr, the Joneses received a consumer complaint 
form, which they filled out and returned to the DOI’s consumer services division 
as directed.”   
 
6.  The fifth sentence in the second full paragraph on page 935 is modified 
to read:  “But the Joneses did not attempt to inform the DOI of Cal-Eagle’s 
misrepresentation, nor to press the matter with the DOI personnel in charge of 
handling the complaint, much less pursue an appeal.”   
 
7.  The second sentence in the second paragraph on page 940 is modified 
to read:  “There, the overcharging of premiums was inextricably linked to the 
mishandling of claims – precisely the kind of bad faith behavior that goes to the 
heart of the special insurance relationship and gives rise to tort remedies.”   
 
8.  The paragraph on page 942 is modified by adding at the end the 
following sentence:  “Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal.” 
 
This modification changes the judgment.