Vigilant Insurance Company vs. Robert C. Chiu et al.
Filed 6/29/09
Second Appellate District
Cite as B209550

ViewSonic's Insurer Gets Damages from Convicted Thief

On April 7, 2004, Robert G. Chiu aka Chih Yuan Chiu (Robert) was convicted of the crime of grand theft. Over a period of time, he had stolen $397,085.31 worth of computer accessories, including monitors, peripherals, keyboards and other parts, from his employer, ViewSonic.

As a part of his sentence, Robert was ordered to pay restitution to ViewSonic in the total sum of $615,000 which included the value of the stolen property, as well as lost profits and opportunity costs, and pre-order interest.

However, ViewSonic had a policy of crime insurance with Vigilant Insurance Company (Vigilant)and on September 4, 2005, pursuant to the terms of the Policy, it paid to ViewSonic the sum of $347,085.31. In consideration of such payment, ViewSonic executed a release and assignment of all of its rights against Robert in favor of Vigilant.

Thus, an action against Robert was filed by Vigilant on March 30, 2006, alleging counts for fraud, conversion and embezzlement. It sought recovery for the loss it had actually paid to its insured, $347,085.31, plus the insured’s deductible of $50,000.

The court awarded judgment in favor of Vigilant totaling $504,306.89 which consisted of $397,085.31 in actual damages, interest of $105,853.15 and costs in the amount of $1,368.43.

An appeal was filed by Robert arguing that the judgment was improper because:

1. Vigilant, as the assignee of its insured, already had an enforceable judgment against Robert and was not entitled to a second duplicative judgment.
2. As a matter of law, there cannot be two civil judgments for the same injury;
3. the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony as to the legislative purpose and intent behind Section 1202.4 and its provisions for restitution.

Robert seeks reversal of a judgment entered in favor of Vigilant as he has already been ordered to pay restitution as part of his criminal sentence for grand theft and that the restitution order includes the same amounts which Vigilant has recovered in the instant case.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals found Robert’s appeal for a reversal of judgment without merit. It held that:

• An order of restitution under Section 1202.4 in favor of a victim of a crime does not preclude the victim or his assignee from pursuing a separate civil action based on the same facts from which the criminal conviction arose.


• A section from Proposition 8 or the “Victim’s Bill of Rights,” declares that, “All persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.”


• All defendants who have been convicted of a crime must make restitution for the economic losses suffered by their victims as well as to pay a fine payable to the Restitution Fund.


• Restitution acts as a “deterrent to future criminality” by forcing criminals to directly face the harm they have caused to their victims. (Ibid.; see People v. Moser, supra, at p. 134.)


• It held that it has a rehabilitative purpose by “…ensur[ing] that “amends [are] made to society for the breach of the law.” (People v. Crow (1993) 6 Cal.4th 952, 957.)

The CA ruled that since restitution orders and civil judgments are issued for different purposes, a victim suffering from economic losses as a result of a criminal act has a right to both. In this case, since ViewSonic has assigned its rights to Vigilant, Vigilant can pursue a civil action against Robert for reimbursement for ViewSonic’s claim resulting from Robert’s theft

Accordingly, as held in the case of (People v. Bernal (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 155, 166.), “A victim’s insurance company can bring civil actions for reimbursement against the defendant or the victim.”

Robert’s appeal is denied and Vigilant is entitled to recovery of damages and compensation.