People v. Vasquez
190 Cal. App. 4th 1126
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Vasquez was convicted on one felony count for failing to control a dangerous animal that caused serious bodily injury to Heiddy; probation and other conditions were imposed.
- Restitution of $168,633.20 for Heiddy’s medical expenses was ordered, with the court noting ongoing medical treatment and future civil recovery possible for additional losses.
- Heiddy later pursued a civil action resulting in a $300,000 settlement funded by Mora’s homeowners policy, which also insured Vasquez, with allocations for attorney fees and medical expense reimbursement.
- Vasquez moved to order satisfaction of restitution, arguing the civil settlement amounts to an offset directly from him under §1202.4, a proposition the trial court denied.
- The People contended the civil settlement does not discharge restitution, and the court found only a potential offset for medical costs actually included in the restitution order, not for future or non-medical losses.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that civil settlements do not automatically satisfy restitution and that any offset is limited to medical costs within the restitution order, based on substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether civil settlement payments offset restitution | Vasquez | People | No full offset; offset limited to medical costs post-dating the order |
| Whether insurer-paid settlements can satisfy restitution directly from the defendant | Vasquez | People | Not directly; restitution remains separate from civil recovery |
| Scope of offset—medical expenses vs. other losses | Vasquez | People | Offset only to the extent of medical expenses included in the restitution order |
| Burden of proof to establish entitlement to offset | Vasquez | People | Vasquez failed to prove the required facts for an offset |
| Relation between restitution order and civil action for same losses | Vasquez | People | Restitution and civil actions are independent; one does not discharge the other |
Key Cases Cited
- Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Chiu, 175 Cal.App.4th 438 (2009) (restitution and civil judgments are independent)
- People v. Bernal, 101 Cal.App.4th 155 (2002) (victim release does not bar restitution; insurer offset rules)
- Short, 160 Cal.App.4th 899 (2008) (offset limited to medical costs included in restitution, with allocations to attorney fees)
- People v. Jennings, 128 Cal.App.4th 42 (2005) (offsets may apply for medical expenses portion of settlements when supported)
- In re Brittany L., 99 Cal.App.4th 1381 (2002) (insurer payments to victim do not reduce restitution fully)
- People v. Birkett, 21 Cal.4th 226 (1999) (full restitution intended irrespective of third-party reimbursements)
- In re Tommy A., 131 Cal.App.4th 1580 (2005) (settlement payments from insurer of another liable party may not discharge minor’s restitution)