In what circumstances will the appellate court overturn a finding that the trial court did not decide on a particular factual question?

In Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., the appellate court had two reasons for concluding that the trial court did not decide a particular factual questionnamely, whether the plaintiff was an insured under the insurance policy. "The record d[id] not support a reasonable inference that the court considered the evidence submitted by [plaintiff] on the question whether he [was] an insured under the Policy or that it made a finding, based on that evidence, that [plaintiff was] or [was] not an insured under the Policy." (Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 422.)

Page 14

In contrast to the situation presented in Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., here the trial court's written decision discusses evidence regarding the availability of the customer agreements to plaintiffs. For example, the court specifically mentioned the testimony of Pinedo about Vitucci's custom and habit of not giving documents to clients and stated that it found the testimony persuasive. Therefore, unlike Bouton, this is not a case where the trial court failed to consider the evidence relevant to the question of fact in dispute. (See Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 422.)