Civil Rights
Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In plaintiff's suit against his insurance company for disposing of evidence that was to be used against a tire manufacturer in a product liability suit, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for nonsuit is reversed where: 1) plaintiff set forth a prima facie case that he relied to his detriment on State Farm's promise to preserve the tire; 2) plaintiff's opening statement referred to sufficient prima facie evidence to create a strong inference that the tire was defective and had it not been destroyed, plaintiff would have been able to prove his case against the tire manufacturer; 3) under the present facts, plaintiff's damages are reasonably ascertainable; and 4) plaintiff's pleadings, in conjunction with his opening statement, encompass the legal concepts of promissory estoppel and/or a voluntary undertaking by State Farm.
Read Cooper v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. E047002
Appellate Information
Filed September 17, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge King
Counsel
For Appellant: McCune Wright, Richard D. McCune and Kristy M. Arevalo
For Appelle: Berger Kahn, Sherman M. Spitz, David B. Ezra, and Jeffrey S. Crowe
Sign into your Legal Forms and Services account to manage your estate planning documents.
Sign InCreate an account allows to take advantage of these benefits: