California Court of Appeal

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.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/17/2009
• Published 09/17/2009

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• McCuneWright, Richard D. McCune and Kristy M. Arevalo for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Berger Kahn, Sherman M. Spitz, David B. Ezra, and Jeffrey S. Crowe, Irvine, for Defendant and Respondent.