Records from previous court filings show that in October, BRIC argued that a person or institution with a claim to money does not actually own it, concluding that “anticipated revenue” falls outside the scope of the Recology policy’s employee theft provisions.
Recology, who is represented by attorney Craig A. Pinedo of Pinedo Law, said in his opposition brief, that BRIC’s current coverage position “bear[s] little resemblance” to its initial position, which it claims was based on the fact that the former employees did not personally benefit from uncollected landfill fees.
Recology claims that when BRIC was presented with case law that rejected its argument and coverage position, it says BRIC “cobbled together an incoherent and unduly restrictive interpretation of ‘theft’ that violates multiple rules of policy construction under California law.”
Testimony from multiple individuals that BRIC cited in its own summary judgment filings did not contain written declarations from these purported individuals stating they could or would testify under oath as to the statements alleged.
