Puaolele Ieremia v. Hilmar Unified School District
In the Court of Appeal of the State of California
26 August 2008
C056319 (Super. Ct. No. CV025491)

Wife Recovered $2M Plus in Damages for Personal Injuries

This case stemmed from a motor vehicle accident that befalls Roy and Puaolele Ieremia, husband and wife. The suit for the recovery of damages ended with Puaolele recovering $128,145 in economic damages and $1.9M in non-economic damages for personal injuries.

It appears that sometime in 2004, the husband and wife figured in an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant. (Roy Ieremia was also named plaintiff in the personal injury complaint filed by the couple but the action was dismissed with respect to him. Trial proceeded with only Puaolele as the plaintiff.)

The facts of the case show that the two has been married and remained married since 1992. In 2003, Roy worked in a moving and installation business. In the course of his employment, Roy made installment payments out of his earnings to pay $6,000 for the purchase of a Dodge Durango from his boss. After several payments, Roy was given the keys to and full possession of the Durango. He became the exclusive driver of it, driving it to and from work from his sister’s home.

During the suit, defendants tried to evade payment of non economic damages. They contended that Proposition 213 and Civil Code Section 3333.4(a) (2) precluded Puaolele’s recovery of such damages because she was an owner of the uninsured vehicle in which she was a passenger at the time of the accident.

But the Court of Appeal of the State of California didn’t agree. Instead, the Court upheld the ruling of the trial court and affirmed the award of damages, both economic and non-economic damages earlier mentioned.

In arriving to this decision, the Court took into consideration the following undisputed facts:

• After making final payment, Roy asked his boss for the pink slip on the Durango but the boss was not able to give it before the day of the accident. At the time of the accident, neither Roy nor Puaolele was on the title to the Durango.


• Puaolele didn’t know that her husband has bought the Durango using their community fund. She didn’t know Roy was using it to get to and from work from his sister’s home. She never had possession of the keys to the car. She never drove the car.


• Roy brought the Durango home for the first time a day or two before the accident.


• It was Puaolele’s understanding from Roy that his boss had lent him the car. The first time that Puaolele had ever been in the Durango was the day she and Roy met an accident.

The Court agreed with the trial court when it concluded that plaintiff was not an owner of the Durango for purposes of Proposition 213. Had the conclusion been otherwise, Puaolele would not have recovered non economic damages because the law bars recovery of non economic damages if the person injured in the motor vehicle accident “was the owner of a vehicle in the accident and the vehicle was not insured…”