Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which sustained defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint that alleged the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, seeking damages for breach of an implied contract, an injunction and declaratory relief.
The owner of a property erected a "for sale" sign. Plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker, alleged that defendant intended her sign to constitute an open listing with brokers local to that area, who would then negotiate with prospective buyers towards sale of the property. Some interested buyers approached plaintiff. Plaintiff sent the owner a note informing her about their interest and asked her to refer them to him should the buyers contact her directly. Later, plaintiff learned that the sale was made without his participation and alleged that he was denied his commission. Employment lawyer San Bernardino brought action against the vendor and vendee of the property and members of the vendee group for the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and asked for damages for breach of an implied contract, an injunction against the escrow holder, and declaratory relief. Defendants' demurrer to the complaint was sustained and the action was dismissed. On appeal, the court found a cause of action of intentional interference with prospective advantage was stated and reversed the judgment on that cause of action. The remaining counts were affirmed.
The court reversed the judgment. The judgment on all remaining counts were affirmed.
Plaintiff, individuals and federation, appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied a preliminary injunction against defendant insurance company in an action involving cancellation of policies for day care home providers in violation of Cal. Ins. Code § 484, Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03, Cal. Ins. Code §§ 675- 678, and unfair business practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
Plaintiff, providers and federation, were licensed family day care home providers and a nonprofit corporation that assists such providers. Plaintiffs claimed defendant insurance company's cancellation of policies and nonrenewal of plaintiff providers without notice constituted bad faith, fraud, breach of contract, violation of Cal. Ins. Code § 484, Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03, and Cal. Ins. Code §§ 675- 678, and unfair business practices pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. The trial court denied plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reversed the judgment because plaintiffs demonstrated that denial of the injunction would result in harm greater to plaintiffs than the harm to defendants if it were granted. The court rejected defendant's argument that the harm to plaintiffs was strictly financial, and also disagreed that defendant was insolvent. The court held that plaintiffs successfully established a reasonable probability of success on the ambiguous cancellation language and that it would be unconscionable to permit midterm cancellations where the average insured would not understand the language.
The court reversed the judgment denying plaintiff, providers and federation, preliminary injunction against defendant insurance company because plaintiffs demonstrated that denial of the injunction would result in harm greater to plaintiffs than the harm to defendants if it were granted.