Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ash v. North American Title Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 18, 2014No. B237404Published

[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]

1Dissent

KRIEGLER, J., Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

My colleagues reverse the judgment on the theory the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the damages suffered by the buyer were foreseeable. I disagree and would hold, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, that the issue of foreseeability was properly left to the jury’s determination.

The escrow company breached an agreement with the buyer to secure his funds by a specified date, leaving the funds with an intermediary. Whether the intermediary’s bankruptcy was foreseeable to the escrow…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. West v. JPMorgan Chase BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. Lewis Jorge Construction Management, Inc. v. Pomona Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Hunt Bros. Co. v. San Lorenzo Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Professional Engineers in California Government v. SchwarzeneggerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API