Continental Insurance v. Superior Court

Opinion

SCOTT, Acting P. J.

This petition challenges denial of a motion for summary judgment. By the motion, Continental Insurance Company sought a ruling that the complaint against it was barred by the one-year limitation period in its insurance contract. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that “the date from which contracted one year requirement to sue begins is [a] factual issue.” Without reaching the merits of the trial court’s

[1071]

ruling, we vacate the court order for failure to comply with a recent amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

1

Section 437c, as the result of a 1983 amendment (Stats. 1983, ch. 490, No. 4 Deering's Adv. Legis. Service, pp. 532-534, No. 7 West's Cal. Legis. Service, pp. 3035-3039), requires a precise explanation of a trial court ruling denying summary judgment. Subdivision (g), applicable to the ruling here, states: “Upon the denial of a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is a triable issue as to one or more material facts, the court

shall,

by written or oral order,

specify one or more material facts raised by the motion

as to which the court has determined there exists a triable controversy. This determination shall

specifically refer to the evidence proffered in support of and in opposition to the motion which indicates that such triable controversy exists.

...” (Italics added.)

Clearly, the trial court’s statement, quoted above, does not satisfy the requirements of the statute. In our request for opposition we asked real party in interest whether the requirements of the statute had been met and whether a writ should issue to compel compliance. Real party conceded that the order “may have been defective in form by not referring to the evidence in support of or in opposition to the motion.” As a suggested remedy, real party furnished this court and respondent superior court with a proposed amended order. The court has signed the proposed amended order.