SEAN RASHTI
5150 YARMOUTH AVE APT. 210
ENCINO, CA 91315
CELL TELEPHONE: 818-448-6500
FAX: 818-705-2724
PLAINTIFF IN PROPER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
| SEAN RASHTI,
Plaintiff vs. KOOROSH SHAHROKH, as attorney for deceased Defendant TOBY WANK, Defendant |
)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
Case No.: No. 19STCV42312
Judge: Honorable Audra Mori Department: 31
DEMAND FOR NON-PRIVILEGE POLICY LIMIT
Complaint filed: Nov. 26. 2019 Trial Date: May 20.2022 |
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff SEAN RASHTI
RESPONDING PARTY: KOOROSH SHAHROKH, as attorney for deceased Defendant
TOBY WANK,
Dear KOOROSH SHAHROKH,
I am writing this non-privileged policy limit demand. My case against the decedent TOBY WANK (hereinafter “the decedent”) exceeds the decedent’s insurance proceeds. Should you refuse to tender the policy and this case proceeds to a trial in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles, we will seek a judgment well in excess of the decedent’s policy limits.
I will therefore allow 30 days for the decedent’s insurance company to notify me of the tender of the policy. In the event you fail to tender the policy as requested, I shall do everything in my power to make sure an excess verdict is entered and every last penny in excess of that verdict is collected. As you are aware, an insurer’s duty to settle is satisfied when there is a reasonable probability of recovery in excess of policy limits.
Notably, from the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied by law in all contracts, and from the liability insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify covered claims, California courts have derived an implied duty on the part of the insurer to accept reasonable settlement demands on such claims within the policy limits. See Hamilton v. Md. Casualty Co. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 718, 724. The duty to settle is implied in law to protect the insured from exposure to liability in excess of coverage as a result of the insurer’s gamble — on which only the insured might lose. Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 937, 941.
As outlined above, this demand is for the policy limits. The breach of that duty will be in bad faith and will subject me to further liability. Assuming the trial court will enter judgment on an excess verdict, I will seek an assignment of my claim against the insurance company for negotiating in bad faith and for vexatious delay as permitted under the Insurance Code and jurisprudence from the courts. In that suit, I will seek my full damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and punitive damages. Therefore, please be aware that in the event the full policy limits are not tendered to settle the case and avoid trial and judgment is entered in excess of the policy, I will pursue all avenues under the law to recover the full amount of the judgment from the insurance company.
We hope to resolve this matter as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: _————-__
Respectfully submitted,
| SEAN RASHTI
PROPER
|
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on ————, a copy of the foregoing document has been sent to the Defendant in the following address:
____via U.S. MAIL
____via OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE
____via FACSIMILE
____via E-MAIL
Dustin J. Lee, State Bar No. 270260
MARK R. WEINER & ASSOCIATES
Employees of the Law Department
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
655 North Central Avenue, 12th Floor
Glendale, California 91203-1434
Telephone: (818) 543-4000 / FAX: (855) 396-3606
E-Mail Address: Cali.Law-Lee-D@statefarm.com
Dated: ————–
|