Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D is a corporation specializing in transportation. It entered into an agreement with the City where it agreed to administer all aspects of a special transportation program. Under the Paratransit Agreement and under local law governing the Paratransit Program local ordinances required all taxicab companies operating in San Francisco to participate in the Paratransit Program and for their taxicabs to comply with Program rules. P alleges that the Regulations establish the minimum insurance requirements at issue in this case. P alleges D breached its contractual obligation to actively oversee and monitor the performance of its service providers. D is supposed to monitor all Providers to ensure that they 'demonstrate required insurance coverage and maintain Certification of Insurance, annually and upon renewal . . . .' P contends that the regulations obligate D to enforce minimum automobile liability insurance requirements on Providers by withholding contract payments from those who are noncompliant. Regulations require taxicab companies to maintain at least $1 million of automobile liability insurance 'per accident combined single limit for bodily injury liability and property damage liability including liability to passengers.' P contends that these requirements demonstrate the City's intent to require that every taxicab and driver operating within the City carry the $1 million minimum automobile liability coverage, around the clock, regardless of whether the vehicle is, at any given time, providing services under the Paratransit Agreement. P was struck and injured by a Yellow Cab taxicab. P sued Yellow Cab and won a judgment of $861,250. Yellow Cab did not carry the mandated minimum insurance and did not pay the judgment. Yellow Cab later filed for bankruptcy and P's judgment remains unsatisfied. P filed this action, alleging that D's failure to monitor and enforce Yellow Cab's compliance with the $1 million insurance minimum, which constitutes a breach of the Paratransit Agreement, is the proximate cause of Yellow Cab's inability to satisfy his personal injury judgment, and that he was an intended third party beneficiary of that Agreement. D demurred, arguing that P did not establish his status as an intended third party beneficiary. Judgment was entered dismissing P's claims. This appeal followed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co