Legal Judgment

I have learned in 10 years of practicing law that it is difficult to make snap judgments about complex legal disputes reported in the newspapers. It is often the case that there are no clear “villains” or “heroes” and that litigants’ motives are rarely noble or venal enough to make for interesting reading. Your lengthy article about the recent bad faith judgment against the Auto Club (“Perseverance Pays in ‘Loser’ Case,” Jan. 5), however, suggests such a black/white, David-vs.-Goliath theme.

Let me suggest that from the standpoint of public policy, we should not lose sight of the facts underlying the four lawsuits described in the article: a father and son are injured in a 1979 auto accident caused by a drunken driver who happened to be an illegal alien (who was eventually deported).

In an uncontested proceeding, the father and son established that their damages amounted to $38,000. When the dust settled 12 years later, a jury awarded $1.7 million to the father and son, not against the drunk driver, but against an insurance company that issued a policy to a relative of the drunk driver, who was not involved in the auto accident. The basis for the award of punitive damages was a “bad faith” cause of action (created by the Rose Bird court) that has subsequently been repudiated by the California Supreme Court, although pending cases were allowed to go forward.

In a nutshell, the story line is that through 12 years of lawsuits a $38,000 injury caused by one party is turned into a $1.7 million punitive damage award against another party, based on a legal theory that no longer exists. The punitive damage award, if upheld, will result in higher insurance costs for all drivers insured by the Auto Club. The article is right that “perseverance pays”; attorney Marc Stern and his clients certainly enjoyed a windfall. Maybe I’m cynical, but it seems to me that everyone else is the loser in this case.

MARK S. PULLIAM, San Diego