Free Trial Brief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Wayne Gill, Esq., (FL Bar 114953) (Pro Hac Vice Admission) Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson LLP 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., 7th Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel: 561/689-6700 Fax: 561/689-2647 Steven Plitt, Esq. (State Bar No. 007481) Daniel Maldonado, Esq. (State Bar No. 018483) Kunz Plitt Hyland Demlong Kleifield 3838 North Central Ave., #1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1092 Tel: 602/331-4600 Fax: 602/331-8600 Appearing for Defendant IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; UHAUL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA; U-HAUL COMPANY OF FLORIDA; and REPUBLIC WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs, vs. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. Pursuant to the Court's Proposed Final Pretrial Order: I. AGENCY LAW The party claiming agency has the burden of proving the agency. Brown v. Arizona Dept. of Real Estate, 181 Ariz. 320, 890 P.2d 615 (App. 1995). CASE NO. CIV-04-0662-PHX-DGC (Maricopa County Superior Court Case No. CV 2004-002438) DEFENDANT'S TRIAL BRIEF

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

-1Document 146

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3

Agency is not dependent upon what the particular person in question is called. Independent Gin Co., Inc. v. Parker, 19 Ariz. App. 413, 508 P.2d 78 (1973). An insurance broker is considered an agent of the insured in obtaining or

4 5 6 7 8 9

procuring insurance from an insurer. Hill v. Chubb Life, 178 Ariz. 37, 870 P.2d 1133 (App.1993). Express agency exists where there is evidence that the principal has delegated authority by oral or written words authorizing the person or entity in question to do certain acts. Gulf Ins. Co. v. Grisham, 126 Ariz. 123, 613 P.2d 283 (1980).

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Implied agency exists where there is no express authority, but where the intent to create such authority can be implied from the actions of the principal and agent. Gulf Ins. Co. v. Grisham, 126 Ariz. 123, 613 P.2d 283 (1980); Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of North Carolina v. Great Plains Capital Corp., 168 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 1999). Where an apparent agency relationship is found to exist, the principal is just as liable for the acts of the agent as if the agent was an actual agent. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of North Carolina v. Great Plains Capital Corp., 168 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 1999). Apparent (ostensible) agency exists where a principal has intentionally or inadvertently induced a third person to reasonably believe that the person in question

21 22 23 24 25 26

was the principal's agent, and that the person in question was authorized to make representations on behalf of the principal regarding certain matters although no actual or express authority was conferred on the person as agent. Miller v. Mason-McDuffie

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

-2Document 146

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3

Co. of So. California, 153 Ariz. 585, 739 P.2d 806 (1987); Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of North Carolina v. Great Plains Capital Corp., 168 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 1999). In order to hold a principal liable for an agent's acts on a theory of apparent

4 5 6 7 8 9

authority, the third party must show that his reliance upon the agent's apparent authority was reasonable. Miller v. Mason-McDuffie Co. of So. California, 153 Ariz. 585, 739 P.2d 806 (1987). Where there is apparent authority to make a truthful representation, then there is also apparent authority to make a false representation about the same matter. Universal

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Premium Acceptance Corp. v. Preferred Nat. Ins. Co., 157 F.Supp.2d 1222 (D. Kansas 2001). II. ESTOPPEL

The party pleading the defense of estoppel has the burden of proving estoppel by clear and satisfactory proof. Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co., 152 Ariz. 455, 733 P.2d 652 (App. 1986); Knight v. Rice, 83 Ariz. 377, 321 P. 2d. 1037 (1958). In order to establish grounds for estoppel, the representations do not have to be made with the intent to deceive, defraud, or mislead another. St. Joseph's Hospital and

21 22 23 24 25 26

Medical Center v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 154 Ariz. 307, 742 P.2d 808 (1987). The elements of estoppel are conduct by which one intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe and have confidence in certain material facts which inducement results in acts in reliance thereon, justifiably taken which cause

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

-3Document 146

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3

injury to the party thus relying. Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 540 P.2d 656, (1975); St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 154 Ariz. 307, 742 P.2d 808 (1987).

4 5 6 7 8 9

Justifiable reliance requires being excusably ignorant of the true facts. Sahlin v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 103 Ariz. 57, 463 P.2d 606 (1968). Custom or course of dealing may furnish the basis for waiver and estoppel. State Farm v. Robison, 11 Ariz. App. 41, 461 P.2d 520 (1969). Failure to read an insurance policy, and to thereby fail to discover a discrepancy

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

between the policy's printed provision and the agent's representation does not negate estoppel if it was reasonable to rely on the agent's representation as to coverage, instead of reading the policy. Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 140 Ariz. 383, 682 P.2d 388 (1984). Estoppel means that a party is prevented by its own acts, or by the authorized acts of its agent, from claiming a right to the detriment of another party who was reasonably entitled to rely on such conduct and has acted accordingly. Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Construction Co., 152 Ariz. 455, 733 P.2d 652 (App. 1986). To prevent injustice, estoppel holds as true a representation acted on, when the

21 22 23 24 25 26

person who made it, or his privies, deny its truth, and attempt to deprive the party who has acted on the benefit obtained. St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 154 Ariz. 307, 742 P.2d 808 (1987).

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

-4Document 146

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

DATED this 10th day of January, 2007. WALTON LANTAFF SCHROEDER & CARSON LLP Wayne T. Gill, Esq. Southtrust Center 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., #700 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

KUNZ PLITT HYLAND DEMLONG KLEIFIELD Steven Plitt, Esq. Daniel Maldonado, Esq. 3838 N. Central Ave., Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1902

By: s/Daniel Maldonado Daniel Maldonado, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Filed electronically this 10th day of January, 2007 and copies electronically served/mailed to: Gerald Gaffaney, Esq. David J. Ouimette, Esq. Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A. 2901 North Central, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: 602/285-5000 Fax: 602/285-5100 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

-5Document 146

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Bruce Friedman, Esq. Mark S. Fragner, Esq. Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP 292 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: 212/953-2381 Fax: 212/953-2462 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants

s/ Tracey Barnes

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

-6Document 146

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 6 of 6