37 Cal. App. 5th 517
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Samsky was rear-ended in July 2015 and again in September 2015; he settled with the other drivers and sued his insurer, State Farm, under his underinsured motorist policy for injuries from both collisions.
- Parties consolidated claims for arbitration; shortly before arbitration State Farm paid Samsky for the September accident, so arbitration covered only the July accident.
- Samsky propounded eight RFAs about the July accident (two on non-negligence; six on concussion/traumatic brain injury and ulnar injury). State Farm denied all eight.
- The arbitrator found Samsky not negligent as to the July collision, awarded medical and general damages, and treated some post-September treatment as related to the July injury.
- Samsky moved in superior court for costs of proof under Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420 after proving the matters in the RFAs; the trial court denied the motion, placing the burden on Samsky to disprove the statutory exceptions.
- The Court of Appeal held Samsky proved the RFAs, State Farm had the burden to prove any subdivision (b) exceptions and failed to do so; reversed and remanded for determination of reasonable costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Samsky) | Defendant's Argument (State Farm) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Samsky proved the truth of the eight RFAs | Arbitrator’s findings establish Samsky was not negligent and suffered the claimed July injuries | Denials alone; disputed evidence exists | Held for Samsky — arbitrator’s findings provide substantial evidence that Samsky proved the RFAs |
| Who bears burden to establish exceptions to §2033.420(b) (i.e., "reasonable ground" or "other good reason") | State Farm, as the party asserting the exception, must prove it | Samsky argued trial court wrongly required him to disprove exceptions | Held for Samsky — the party seeking benefit of an exception (State Farm) bears burden to prove it |
| Whether State Farm had reasonable grounds when denying the RFAs on negligence | Samsky: no evidence State Farm had admissible, credible proof when denying RFAs; inability to locate Jensen undermines reasonableness | State Farm: relied on vehicle damage, recorded statement of another driver, and expert opinions | Held for Samsky — substantial evidence State Farm did not show reasonable grounds to deny negligence RFAs |
| Whether State Farm had reasonable grounds to deny injury RFAs | Samsky: State Farm didn’t show it relied on experts or had their reports when denying; arbitrator found State Farm’s experts not credible | State Farm: relied on multiple expert opinions and reconstruction | Held for Samsky — substantial evidence State Farm failed to show reasonable grounds for denying injury RFAs; remand to calculate costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Orange County Water Dist. v. The Arnold Engineering Co., 31 Cal.App.5th 96 (2018) (discusses "reasonable ground to believe [a party] would prevail" standard and factors to evaluate denial of RFAs)
- Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706 (2008) (standards for appellate review of trial court factual and legal determinations)
- Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (2010) (party asserting an exception to a general statute bears the burden of proof)
- Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co., 87 Cal.App.3d 267 (1978) (interpreting earlier version of RFA-costs statute; distinguished in opinion)
- Garcia v. Hyster Co., 28 Cal.App.4th 724 (1994) (indicates burden to justify denial of RFAs lies with responding party)