Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05583-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES FIDELITY &

GUARANTY COMPANY, a Maryland

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEE INVESTMENTS LLC dba THE

ISLAND, a California Limited

Liability Company, RICHARD K.

EHRLICH, an individual, REXFORD

PROPERTIES, LLC, a California

Limited Liability Company,

REXFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

a California corporation, and

DIANA CONLEY, an individual,

Defendants.

________________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:99-cv-5583 OWW SMS

PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON JURY’S

VERDICTS UPON MULTIPLE

CLAIMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE

PARTIES (FED.R.CIV.P.

55(b))

This case was tried before a jury commencing January 29,

2007, and concluded upon the return, by the jury, of its verdicts

on February 26, 2007. The case involves more than one claim for

relief, including counter-claims and third-party claims and

involved multiple parties. The parties have reserved, by written

stipulation and order: USF&G’s alter ego claims against Richard

K. Ehrlich, an individual, et al., the determination of the

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 681 Filed 03/01/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

amount of any attorneys’ fees and interest claimed by USF&G; and

the claim of Aon Risk Services Inc. of Central California

Insurance Services (“Aon”) for relief based on the tort of

another. All other claims of the parties were adjudicated by the

jury, including USF&G’s claim for rescission based on fraud; all

claims of Lee Investments LLC, dba The Island, a California

limited liability company. Any claims as to Diana Conley have

been determined by the parties’ stipulation. 

Due to the prior delay in, complexity and contentiousness of

this litigation, to avoid uncertainty and inconsistent verdicts,

there is no just reason for delay and partial judgment should now

therefore be entered. 

Based on the jury’s written verdicts returned in open court

February 26, 2007, the following verdicts were rendered:

A. The jury’s verdicts finding in favor of USF&G on its

claim for rescission finding fraud and intentional concealment;

finding against Lee on all Lee’s defenses of statutory waiver,

common law waiver, estoppel, unreasonable delay, wrongful

conduct, and awarding USF&G restitution damages in the amount of

$875,034.99. 

B. On Lee’s claims against USF&G, American Specialty and

Aon, finding in favor of USF&G, American Specialty, and Aon and

against Lee on all Lee’s claims for fraud/intentional

misrepresentation; concealment; conspiracy; negligent

misrepresentation; and negligence. Finding against Lee and in

favor of Aon on Lee’s claim for breach of an oral contract

against Aon. Finding in favor of USF&G, American Specialty and

Aon and against Lee on all their defenses to Lee’s claims based

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 681 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

on fraud of Lee; negligent misrepresentation by Lee; estoppel

against Lee; wrongful conduct by Lee; common law waiver against

Lee; as to Aon against Lee due to Lee’s intentional tort as

superseding cause; as to Aon, no unreasonable delay by Lee; and

in favor of Aon and against Lee on Aon’s defense of assumption of

risk. 

C. On all Aon’s claims against Lee, finding in favor of Aon

and against Lee on Aon’s claims for intentional

misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and that Lee was

100% comparatively at fault; in favor of Aon’s claim of

negligence against Lee; that Aon was not negligent. Finding in

favor of Aon and against Lee on all Lee’s affirmative defenses to

Aon’s claims, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation,

estoppel, no wrongful conduct by Aon; no common law waiver by

Aon, no unreasonable delay by Aon. 

Accordingly, on each of these claims and defenses, JUDGMENT

IS ENTERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. In favor of USF&G and against Lee for rescission and

USF&G shall recover from Lee restitutionary damages of

$875,034.99; 

2. Against Lee on all Lee’s defenses to USF&G’s claims for

rescission; 

3. Against Lee on all its claims and in favor of USF&G,

American Specialty and Aon against Lee and in favor of USF&G,

American Specialty and Aon on all their affirmative defenses to

Lee’s claims;

4. In favor of Aon on all its claims and against Lee; and

against Lee in favor of Aon on all on Lee’s affirmative defenses

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 681 Filed 03/01/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

to Aon’s claims; and

5. USF&G, American Specialty and Aon shall recover their

costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 28, 2007.

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-05583-LJO-SMS Document 681 Filed 03/01/07 Page 4 of 4