1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2025/12/18 - Dec 18, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2025/12/18

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 25m 2 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of the oral argument and how does the court begin the session?

Unknown 0:01

All rise. The Court of Appeal for the State of California for Sapella District Division Five is now in session. The Honorable Terry L. Jackson presiding, with Associate Justices, the Honorable Mark B. Simons and the Honorable Danny Y. Q.

Terry L. Jackson 0:18

Please be seated. Good morning.

Terry L. Jackson 0:47

All right, calling the matter at line one. Jack Daniels et al. versus State Farm General Insurance Company et al. I am Justice Terry L. Jackson and I'm on this matter with Justice Mark Simon and Justice Danny Chu. May I please have the appearance starting well both are balancing this. Well let's start with um Jack Daniels. Who's here by way of remote?

Kevin Pollack 1:19

Good morning, Kevin Pollack for the appellants and cross respondents.

Terry L. Jackson 1:23

And um for and if you can go to the podium so we can make sure that we have your appearance um for state farms.

Sandra Stone 1:31

Good morning, Your Honor Sandra Stone, on behalf of Respondents and cross appellants, State Farm General Insurance Company, Annalyssa Samrick.

Terry L. Jackson 1:40

H did you all receive um your orders or the more recent orders in terms of you are allotted more time in view of the fact that we have appellant and cross appellant? And the order of arguments.

Sandra Stone 1:52

Yes, Your Honor.

Terry L. Jackson 1:53

And did you all understand them? Alrighty, let's start. This is a um An appeal from a jury trial or post arguments, I should say, from a jury trial. Jack Daniel is appealing in trial courts where they're stating that the court erred in giving the comparative fault jury instruction, and that there was not substantial evidence to support the jury finding comparative fault, and State Farm and his agents. Is cross-appealing that the court is erred in applying the collateral source rule to bar the offset. based on state state farm prior um payment to Jack Daniels. I'm just kind of summarizing it very quickly. So I've given each side twenty minutes. So how would um Jack Daniels um wish to divide its twenty minutes?

Kevin Pollack 2:55

I I think what we'd like to do is to apply approximately ten minutes to our appeal and then approximately ten minutes to responding to state farms.

Terry L. Jackson 3:06

Okay. So ten and ten. And for state farm.

Terry L. Jackson 3:23

I'm sorry, seven minutes. Okay. All right, with that, I believe you are um Jack Daniels. You are I wasn't

Kevin Pollack 3:34

able to hear what Miss Stone Oh, I'm

Terry L. Jackson 3:37

sorry. That's true. Um

Sandra Stone 3:42

Um I said that we'd like to use thirteen and then reserve seven for rebuttal.

Kevin Pollack 3:48

Fair enough. I just I only raised the issue so that when she later argues to make sh certain that I can hear what she says.

Terry L. Jackson 3:55

All right, with that you may proceed.

Kevin Pollack 4:00

Okay. The starting point in this appeal is a threshold legal question. Whether comparative fault could properly be submitted to the jury at all. An instruction may be given only if the record contains evidence sufficient to support each element of the theory instructed upon. Or the evidentiary foundation is missing, the instruction itself is error. That threshold inquiry is dispositive here because the evidence does not support a finding that any conduct by the Daniels was a substantial factor in causing the underinsurance. In that circumstance, comparative fault should never have gone to the jury, and the error is reviewed de novo. Comparative fault requires evidence of negligent plaintiff conduct that actually contributed as a substantial factor to the harm.

Kevin Pollack 4:57

If causation is missing, the theory fails as a matter of law. The structure of the insurance procurement process controls the causation analysis here. The evidence supports that the Daniels informed Miss Samric of the major remodel and requested coverage to match, and that Mr. Daniels was told the matter was handled. Only Miss Samric and the underwriting department could change the coverage. The Daniels had no authority to change the limits and no access to the underwriting department. The record further shows that underwriting relied entirely on Miss Samret to relay material information. Agents can bind increased coverage immediately by contacting underwriting. While underwriting the value of the other thing, I think that's what I asked the question.

Terry L. Jackson 5:47

When um you when your client informed them that they were moving in or they bought the Napa house.