Mitchell made a payment on the policy using her checking account and received a 30-day binder. Mitchell was concerned about the amount of the policy because the loan on the property was approximately $420,000, but the agent assured her that extended coverage would be provided once the adjuster evaluated the property. On June 26, 2008, Mitchell met with her insurance agent and purchased a property insurance policy through Nationwide for the Smallys’ rental property located at 1039 Georgia Street in Vallejo (the property) with a value of $345,000. We remand the matter to the trial court for a recalculation of MMB’s bad faith damages, and otherwise affirm the judgment. We reverse the amount of bad faith damages awarded to MMB, and modify the amount of the Smallys’ attorney fees award. Nationwide also argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s punitive damages award to MMB nor the court’s award of attorney fees to the Smallys and MMB. Nationwide argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict for breach of the policy or its verdict finding that Nationwide was liable for bad faith in its handling of MMB’s claim. Nationwide cross-appeals from the judgment of damages in favor of the Smallys and MMB and from the court’s order awarding attorney fees.

They also challenge the court’s order denying their motion for a new trial on their claim that Nationwide Insurance Company of America (Nationwide) was obligated to pay the cost of repairing their property. In this insurance bad faith action, Roy Smally, Jr., and Vivi Mitchell (the Smallys) appeal from the court’s judgment determining that the jury verdict, awarding them damages for benefits owed under the policy, was duplicative of the damages awarded to the mortgagee of the Smallys’ property, Marin Mortgage Bankers Corporation (MMB). ROY SMALLY, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, NATIONWIDE INSURANCE Defendant, Cross-defendant and Appellant MARIN MORTGAGE BANKERS CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Binder v. aetna life insurance brief