Court Opinion

ID: 9751559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:35:55.725311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:51.514642
License: Public Domain

SPENCER, P. J.
I concur in the opinion. However, I disagree with the majority’s suggestion that the Supreme Court reconsider Brandt; in my view, Brandt was correctly decided. In light of the duty of good faith and fair dealing owed by an insurer to its insured (Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 817 [210 Cal.Rptr. 211, 693 P.2d 796]) and the virtual certainty an insured whose insurer breaches that duty by failing to pay amounts due under the policy will have to retain an attorney and engage in litigation in order to recover the amounts due, it is reasonable to require the insurer to pay attorney fees as damages proximately caused by the breach (ibid.).
A petition for a rehearing was denied December 19, 1995, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied February 29,1996. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should granted.