## Facts

- San Francisco operated a paratransit program intended to provide transportation services for elderly and disabled residents.
- The City and County of San Francisco entered into a paratransit agreement with Transdev Services, Inc. (Transdev) under which Transdev administered the program, including arranging and managing transportation service providers (TSPs).
- Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. (Yellow Cab) was one of the taxicab companies involved as a TSP for paratransit services.
- The paratransit agreement required Transdev to monitor and enforce TSP performance, including ensuring that participating taxicab companies maintained mandated minimum liability-insurance coverage under applicable local requirements.
- The agreement also included provisions allocating risk and requiring indemnification of the City’s transportation agency for injuries caused by a provider while providing paratransit services.
- Ralph Oliverio was struck and seriously injured by a Yellow Cab taxicab in San Francisco.
- Oliverio sued Yellow Cab and obtained a personal-injury judgment.
- Oliverio alleged the judgment went unpaid because Yellow Cab did not carry the City-mandated minimum liability insurance and later filed for bankruptcy, leaving the judgment unsatisfied.
- Oliverio then sued Transdev, alleging Transdev’s failure to monitor and enforce Yellow Cab’s insurance obligations breached the paratransit agreement and caused Oliverio’s inability to collect on his judgment.
- Oliverio asserted (1) breach of contract as an alleged intended third-party beneficiary of the City–Transdev paratransit agreement and (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on Transdev’s alleged failure to carry out contractual and regulatory duties related to insurance oversight.
- The trial court sustained Transdev’s demurrer to both causes of action and dismissed the claims; Oliverio appealed.

## Issues

1. Did Oliverio allege facts showing he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the City–Transdev paratransit agreement, allowing him to sue Transdev for breach of that contract?
2. Did Oliverio allege UCL standing and a viable UCL claim by pleading that Transdev’s conduct caused him to lose “money or property,” based on the alleged diminished value or noncollectibility of his judgment against Yellow Cab?

## Decision

- The court affirmed dismissal of the breach of contract claim, concluding Oliverio did not plead facts showing the paratransit agreement was made expressly for his benefit (or for a class of persons that included him) in a way that conferred enforceable contract rights.
- The court reversed dismissal of the UCL claim, holding that, at the pleading stage, Oliverio sufficiently alleged a loss of “money or property” and a causal link between Transdev’s alleged failures regarding insurance oversight and Oliverio’s inability to collect on his judgment.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the UCL claim.

## Legal Principles

- A nonparty may enforce a contract only if the contract was made expressly for that person’s benefit (or for a class of persons including the plaintiff); receiving an incidental benefit from performance is not enough.
- Intended third-party beneficiary status depends on the contracting parties’ manifested intent, evaluated from the contract’s terms and purpose; general public-safety or regulatory objectives ordinarily do not create enforceable rights in members of the public absent a clear expression of intent.
- On demurrer, courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and evaluate whether the complaint states a claim under any viable legal theory.
- UCL standing requires injury in fact and loss of money or property “as a result of” the challenged practice; economic harm tied to a reduced ability to collect on a judgment can qualify as loss of money or property at the pleading stage.
- For UCL causation at the pleading stage, allegations that the defendant’s unlawful or unfair conduct was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s economic loss may be sufficient to proceed.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that Oliverio’s complaint did not plausibly allege that the City–Transdev paratransit agreement was intended to grant accident victims enforceable contract rights against Transdev, so the contract claim was properly dismissed; however, Oliverio adequately pleaded a UCL claim by alleging that Transdev’s failure to ensure required insurance coverage caused an economic loss when his judgment against Yellow Cab became effectively uncollectible, requiring reversal and remand as to the UCL cause of action.


Oliverio v. Transdev Services, Inc., 2017 WL 6546338 (2017)