Gallegos v. Kia Motors CA4/3

Filed 10/28/14 Gallegos v. Kia Motors CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

REYNALDO GALLEGOS et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G049400

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00546752)

KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kirk H. Nakamura, Judge. Dismissed. Law Offices of Brad Husen and Brad J. Husen for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lee Tran & Liang, K. Luan Tran and Ariel D. House for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

The underlying lawsuit is about the amount of uninsured motorist insurance provided in an automobile lease contract. Plaintiffs Herlinda Gallegos (Gallegos) and her husband Reynaldo (collectively, plaintiffs) contend the contract called for Kia to provide them with $1 million in uninsured motorist coverage for the vehicle Gallegos leased from Kia. The leased vehicle was involved in a traffic collision caused by another motorist whose insurance did not cover all the injuries suffered by plaintiffs. The question of the amount of uninsured motorist coverage provided by the lease was submitted to the court. The court found the policy did not provide $1 million in coverage, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention. Prior to trial on the remaining issues, plaintiffs made an offer of a civil compromise (Code of Civ. Proc., § 998; all undesignated statutory references are to this code) to Kia, in which Kia would pay plaintiffs approximately $23,000. Kia accepted and judgment was entered per the terms of the civil compromise. Plaintiffs then appealed from the judgment, contending the trial court erred in concluding Kia did not promise to provide $1 million in uninsured motorist coverage. Kia has filed a motion seeking sanctions against plaintiffs for a frivolous appeal. We dismiss the appeal. Plaintiffs cannot appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to the civil compromise. We also deny Kia’s motion. I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL SETTING On July 11, 2008, Gallegos, an employee of defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia), took advantage of a benefit offered by Kia and leased a Kia automobile from her employer. The monthly lease payments were thereafter deducted from Gallegos’s paycheck. The lease contained the following provision concerning insurance coverage: “[Kia] will maintain comprehensive, collision, liability, uninsured motorist and medical insurance. . . .” The lease does not, however, state the amount of insurance