iGarrabrants v. Erhart, 2023 WL 9016436 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Charles Matthew Erhart was an internal auditor for a financial institution who “blew the whistle” on the employer concerning the actions of the bank’s CEO, Gregory Garrabrants. While Erhart’s whistleblower case was pending in federal court, Garrabrants sued Erhart in state court for copying, retaining and transmitting to multiple regulatory authorities documents Erhart believed evidenced possible wrongdoing; those documents included personal and confidential information that belonged to Garrabrants. At trial, a jury awarded Garrabrants $1,502 on his claims against Erhart for invasion of privacy, receiving stolen property and unauthorized access to computer data in violation of Penal Code § 502. The trial court awarded Garrabrants more than $65,000 in costs and more than $1.3 million in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that bank customers have an unqualified reasonable expectation of privacy in financial documents disclosed to banks; that Erhart needed to believe the documents may have been lost or destroyed had he not removed them; and other instructional errors regarding the Penal Code claims. See City of Whittier v. Everest Nat’l Ins. Co., 97 Cal. App. 5th 895 (2023) (Cal. Ins. Code § 533 barring insurer liability for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured does not preclude insurer indemnification of whistleblower claims arising under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5).
