Make your own free website on Tripod.com



The "Farmers Insurance News-Alert" website is dedicated to providing the consumer and general public with detailed information concerning the Farmers Insurance Group. This includes fraud reports, consumer complaints, lawsuit's and other legal actions taken against this company. All information contained herein is for educational purposes only. Original sources, when known are sited.

 

06/19/91 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. STEPHEN

[1]      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[2]      C.A. No. 90-35569

[3]      1991.C09.3218

[4]      June 19, 1991

[5]      FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN HENNESSEY SMITH AND JONG PYNG LIU, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES


[6]      Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Carolyn R. Dimmick, District Judge, Presiding; D.C. No. CV-87-1005-CRD.

[7]      Wright, Farris, and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

[8]      MEMORANDUM

[9]      Farmers Insurance Exchange appeals a judgment awarding Stephen Smith and Jong Pyng Liu replacement cost benefits under their fire policy and attorney's fees under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Farmers argues that because Smith and Liu did not timely replace the building they are not entitled to replacement cost benefits. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

[10]     1. Jurisdiction

[11]     Farmers' California citizenship is open to question but we are satisfied that the state of the record justifies the finding of jurisdiction, which is not challenged on appeal.

[12]     2. Replacement value recovery

[13]     This case is before us for the second time. In the first appeal Smith and Liu challenged the judgment in its entirety. We reversed in part and remanded for the limited purpose of determining actual cash value, and entering judgment accordingly. Our decision in the first appeal became the law of the case. Planned Parenthood of Cent. and N. Ariz. v. State of Ariz., 718 F.2d 938, 949 (9th Cir. 1983). Further, even if our language failed to convey our intent to limit remand, we hold, based on the undisputed facts, that the three year delay in seeking costs of replacement, precludes recovery.

[14]     3. Attorney's fees

[15]     The district court awarded Smith and Liu costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Since we reverse the replacement value award, Smith and Liu are not entitled to costs and fees expended in pursuit of that award. However, Smith and Liu are entitled under the Consumer Protection Act to costs and fees expended in recovering the $12,280 actual cash value award from Farmers. We therefore award costs and fees to Smith and Liu for that portion of the action only. If the parties are unable to stipulate to the amount, we will consider appropriate and timely filed affidavits.

[16]     REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART. EACH SIDE SHALL BEAR ITS OWN COSTS ON APPEAL.

 

Attention! All information contained herein is for educational purposes only. No copyright infringement is intended by any material on these pages. The copyrights of the whole multimedia content on these pages are belonging to their originators, authors, creators... etc. All original content is the property of it's originators. Copyrighted material has been used for non-commercial purposes only. This website is best viewed with your monitor resolution set to 800x600 and your video mode set to true color.