| |
| | The UCL Practitioner |
 | | R&S Towing Service, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Sept. 16, 2005), the plaintiff's UCL claim was predicated on the defendant's alleged violation of Vehicle Code section 22658, subd. |
 | | The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion to strike, holding that the Vehicle Code provision, and therefore the UCL claim, was not preempted by federal law. |
 | | Aside from the court’s discussion of the policy implications of requiring insurers to cover damage claims for violations of the UCL (which could have the effect of letting the wrongdoer off the hook), however, the Bank of the West court offered no further explanation about why damages should not be recoverable in a UCL action. |
| 17200blog.blogspot.com (2486 words) |
|