Ahmed v. Peterson

Opinion

SONENSHINE, J.

Viquar Ahmed was involved in an automobile accident with Delmar E. Peterson. Shortly thereafter Ahmed filed the underlying

[376]

complaint. The first cause of action alleged Peterson’s negligence resulted in damages to Ahmed. The second cause of action claimed the Automobile Club of Southern California (Auto Club), Peterson’s insurance company, had orally promised to settle the case and then reneged. Ahmed sought damages resulting from breach of the oral agreement.

Both defendants demurred. Peterson’s demurrer was overruled. The Auto Club was more successful. Its demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Ahmed amended the original complaint; in fact, he filed three amended complaints. The court sustained the Auto Club’s demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend and eventually dismissed the complaint against the Auto Club.

Meanwhile, the litigation with Peterson continued. Peterson answered the complaint. Ahmed propounded interrogatories to Peterson and later filed an Evidence Code section 669 motion seeking a judicial determination of Peterson’s negligence as a matter of law. The motion was denied but the court granted Peterson’s request for sanctions.

Viquar Ahmed appeals the judgment of dismissal of his complaint against the Auto Club and the order of sanctions in favor of Peterson. We reverse the judgment of dismissal and the order of sanctions.

I

Ahmed argues the trial court erred in dismissing its cause of action against the Auto Club. The trial court’s minute order indicates it relied on

Royal Globe Ins. Co.

v.

Superior Court

(1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 [153 Cal.Rptr. 842, 592 P.2d 329]. Ahmed urges

Royal Globe

is inapposite because his is a “simple breach of contract action [and] ... is not a complain[t] under sections 790.03, subd. (h), of [the] Insurance Code.” He is correct.