Procedural Posture: San Diego business lawyers
Appellant insurer challenged the decision of the Superior Court of Madera County (California), which entered judgment for respondent administratrix of a driver's estate. The administratrix and her driver initiated a suit against the insurer's driver. When the judgment was not paid, the administratrix and her driver filed suit against the insurer. When the driver of the administratrix died, the administratrix became the sole party plaintiff.

Overview
The two drivers were involved in an accident. The insurer's driver did not inform the insurer of the accident until a not guilty plea for reckless driving and communication with attorneys. The question on appeal concerned proper notice to the insurer. On appeal, the court favored the insurer. The facts showed a lack of timely notice to the insurer. The policy required "immediate written notice." Unfortunately, 91 days passed from the accident until the notice to the insurer. However, the lack of notice prejudiced the insurer. It was not responsible for the driver's acts, and it was deprived of the opportunity to investigate the accident and resolve who was at fault. Prejudice was presumed in such a situation.

Outcome
The judgment was reversed in favor of the insurer.

Procedural Posture
Appellant debtor challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California) that entered judgment in favor of respondent creditor in the creditor's breach of contract action to recover the amount in which the debtor was allegedly personally responsible for after the sale of the mine and appealed from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Overview
The creditor and the debtor entered into a written agreement for the debtor to purchase a one-half interest in the creditor's mine, with part of the sales price payable upon execution of the agreement and the balance to be paid only out of the net proceeds of the one-half interest in the mineral claim. Subsequently, the debtor conveyed his one-half interest to a third party, making it impossible for him to pay the remaining debt from the net proceeds of the mineral claim. The creditor released its claim to allow the debtor to sell the property to the third party on condition that the debtor became personally responsible for the unpaid balance due. The debtor failed to make payments as agreed, and the creditor filed an action to collect from the debtor personally. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the creditor, and the debtor appealed. The court ruled that by voluntarily putting it out of his power ever to realize any profits from the mines, the debtor broke his contract and was immediately liable to be sued therefor, without demand, even though the time specified for the performance had not expired. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the creditor for the amount in which the debtor was personally responsible and the order of the trial court that denied the debtor's motion for a new trial in the creditor's breach of contract action against the debtor for the balance due under the parties' contract.