Saipan resident faces drug, firearm charges

For failing to settle a 2002 insurance claim of $2,150, an insurance company will have to pay the insured and third parties and their attorneys nearly $106,000—nearly 50 times the amount of the insurance claim.

The Superior Court ordered Royal Crown Insurance Corp. to pay the amount after a jury rendered its verdict against the company for breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing, and for violations of the Unfair Claims Settlement Act and the Consumer Protection Act.

But Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama reduced the calculated damages assessed by the jury against the insurance firm, which would have reached some $195,550.05. The judge also granted the insurance firm’s request for judgment against the Unfair Claims Settlement Act claim, notwithstanding the jury verdict.

The bulk of the monetary award goes to the insured and third parties’ lawyers for attorney’s fees in the amount of $57,900.18. Lawyers Eric D. Bozman and David Banes of the O’Connor Berman Dotts & Banes represent them in the case.

The insured party, Serafin Esperancilla, will get a total of $30,447.63, while the third party, Bernardo A. Hiponia, will get $9,294.08. The court also jointly awarded Esperancilla and Hiponia the amount of $8,169.76 for costs incurred in bringing the matter to court. In all, the total amount awarded to both of them reached $47,911.47.

The court reduced the amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury to Esperancilla, $85,000, to $23,681.49, which it determined based on the actual damages plus interest that totaled $3,383.07.

“The proper balancing of the factors allows an award of no more than 7 times actual damages,” Lizama said. “In this case, the harm caused to Esperancilla was merely economic. The refusal to pay his claim neither physically harmed nor threatened to physically harm him.”

The court junked the jury verdict to award a separate $25,000 to Esperancilla and $5,000 to Hiponia for the company’s violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Act.

Court records showed that Esperancilla hit Hiponia’s parked car sometime in 2002. At that time, Esperancilla worked for Jen-Marz automobile repair shop and Hiponia was his boss. Esperancilla conceded that the accident was his fault.

Actual cost of repair on the damaged car reached $2,650. The amount covered by the insurance policy was only $2,150, or $500 less. Royal Crown, however, refused the insurance claim, prompting Esperancilla and Hiponia to sue the company. The case went through a full-blown trial by jury.

Lizama ruled that, although Esperancilla admitted fault in the vehicular accident, the insured party did not violate the insurance policy’s cooperation clause, a provision intended to protect the insurer from collusion between the insured and the third party.

The judge said the jury found Esperancilla’s statement as an honest statement of fact, since Hiponia’s vehicle was parked when the accident happened. The judge also noted that the clause contained no specific provision barring the insured from admitting liability.

Except for ruling against the monetary award regarding the Unfair Claims Settlement Act claim, the judge denied Royal Crown’s request for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict or the conduct of a new trial.

But the judge gave Esperancilla and Hiponia the option to have a new trial regarding the court’s decision to reduce the amount awarded by the jury. In an order Friday, the judge gave them 30 calendar days to notify the court if they want to have a new trial; otherwise, the court will deem the reduced monetary award as accepted by them.