Court Opinion

ID: 9725341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:42:16.154462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:14.315213
License: Public Domain

WOODS (Fred), J.
I concur in the judgment only. I find no support in the statutory or case law which would enable the trial court to award attorney’s fees against the insured in this instance. Nor would I inversely apply the decision of our California Supreme Court in Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813 [210 Cal.Rptr. 211, 693 P.2d 796] to uphold the attorney’s fees award disguised as damages as suggested by respondent at oral argument.
I would go further and respectfully suggest that the holding in Brandt be reexamined by our California Supreme Court for what it is, namely, an attempt to “judicially legislate” around California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which proscribes attorney’s fees under circumstances such as in the instant case. I would adopt the well-reasoned view by Justice Malcolm Lucas in his dissent in the Brandt case, which would preclude attorney’s fees to carrier and insured alike in cases such as the one before us in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021. I would urge the California Supreme Court to reexamine its judicial legislation in Brandt and to adopt the view of Justice Malcolm Lucas as contained in his dissent.
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 13, 1990.