قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Pro Se plaintiff shoots himself in the foot when he sues insurer

Pro Se plaintiff shoots himself in the foot when he sues insurer



When a pro pro complainant has little or no knowledge of the law, trial and purpose of an appeal, the chances of success of an appeal are usually small and probably none.

I ShaRon Hassan v Liberty Mutual Insurance Corporation, et al . H044053, Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District (December 30, 2020) after a trip and case that caused her injury Plaintiff ShaRon Hassan filed, in propria persona three separate damages proceedings based on incident. The appellant's documents included Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation (Golden Eagle) (Collective Insurance Defendant). The three measures were consolidated by the trial court, and the measure against the city became the main target. The trial court upheld the policyholders' dissolution without the right to change. The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal, which sought to understand the plaintiff's summary, found that the only appealable judgments or decisions are (1) the judgment of 4 December 2015 in favor of the policyholders (see § 904.1, sub (a)) (1)) and (2 ) the decision of 28 March 2016 which denies Hassan's proposal to reconsider the judgment in favor of the policyholders, which is based on various provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and can be appealed.

DISCUSSION [19659006] It is a fundamental principle of the appeal procedure that a court in a trial is generally presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to show, on the basis of the document presented to the Court of Appeal, that the court committed an error domen. This is not just a general principle of appeal practice but an ingredient in the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. In the absence of an opposite request in the minutes, all assumptions in favor of the action of the Court of Justice will be made by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal is usually limited in its review to the proceedings which took place in the Court below. and is taken up for review in a properly prepared post upon appeal. Actual cases that are not included in the appeal item will not be considered in the appeal and such cases should not be referred to in short summaries.

Hassan confiscated for examination all sensitive issues not supported by legal arguments, reference to legal authority and specific reference to the Appellate Book.

Judgment in favor of policyholders

Hassan claims that the Court's consolidation of the cases resulted in unfair, harmful hearings and decisions against her by the lower courts and the defendants.

The order maintaining the policyholders' dissolution without the right to change was entered into on 14 May 2015. Even provided that the Board of Appeal can review the consolidation decision to the extent that it concerned the insurance respondents, Hassan failed to present any comprehensible legal argument based on legal authority to establish that (1) the trial court committed legal errors by consolidating the case s and (2) the order affects her actions against the policyholders. Consequently, it considered that the claim had been forfeited.

Hassan did not state, with a specific reference to the appeal book, that (1) the parties did not meet and surrender before the insurers submitted their demurrs to the second amended complaint or that (2) before the court decided on the appellant, she objected on the grounds that the insurance respondents had failed to meet and communicate with her.

A review court will usually not consider a challenge to a decision on whether an objection could have been but was not made in court. The purpose of this rule is to encourage the parties to draw the court's attention to errors so that they can be rectified. In addition, it is a principle in reviewing an appeal that a lower court's judgment or decision is assumed to be correct and that errors must be shown affirmatively in the appeal.

Order sustainable insurance defendant's resurrection without permission to change

In appeal, Hassan argued that a court of law commits a reversible error in maintaining a demurrer without the right to change if the plaintiff shows "either in court or on appeal" that there is "a reasonable possibility [that] any defect identified by the defendant can be remedied by amendment."

The insurers incurred each of the 13 legal causes in the second amended complaint. They accused for three reasons: (1) Each act stated not sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action; (2) there was a mismatch between the parties and (3) each action was impermissibly uncertain, vague and ambiguous to them.

The trial court found that Hasan had admitted that the insurers did not own the property in trouble. The trial court upheld the policyholders' policyholders without the right to change the agreement with the policyholders.

Since the appellant had the burden of either showing that the harasser was wrongly maintained or that the court abused its discretion to maintain the harasser. without the right to change. In view of the lack of a meaningful legal argument, the Court of Appeal considered that all appeals against the court's decision which upheld the policyholders' dissolution without the right to change were forfeited on appeal.

If the law allows an appeal of a judgment or decision, it can be appealed even if it is invalid. Therefore, the judgment is upheld on December 4, 2015 in favor of the defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation. The order of 28 March 2016 which rejected the plaintiff Hassan's proposal to reconsider the judgment was revoked as invalid. Hassan is ordered to bear the costs.

The patience and consideration of the Court of Appeal is commendable even if, and after its decision, the appellant absolutely established the legal process to bring his action against the insurers. for a trip and fall accident and then show incredible chutzpah by appealing the order that maintains the insurer's demurrers without the right to change. Getting her to pay costs is something but not daunting enough for others to act in the same way to waste disputes and courts.


© 2020 – Barry Zalma

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to services an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims management, insurance operations and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also acts as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims lawyer and more than 52 years in the insurance industry. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.

Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.

For the past 53 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurance companies and their claims staff to become insurance claims personnel.

https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ Last read two issues of ZIFL here.

Go to Barry Zalma videos on Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921 [195659003] Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile / Zalma / posts [19659003] Listen to the podcast: Zalma on Insurance https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episodes Zalma on Insurance

Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel / UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg] / [1965900Gotoinsuranceclaimslibrary-https://zalmacom/blog/insurance-claims-library/

https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v= 001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkV7pkuOtkiv6oakpgK33CNlNAYW-WBlLCOZFtgvpSdcL7R-tsWKfMVqG6fEuvmM7Hh7gUEJ7yKOdgHDbGl_cGA3 196% [1965] [196] [196] 9659039]
Source link