Judge: Andre De La Cruz, Case: 2022-01298892, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Farmers Insurance Exchange on 4/25/23
2. Case Management Conference

Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Defendant”) filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to all causes of action alleged against it in the Complaint: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) declaratory relief. The Motion is DENIED.

First, the Motion does not comply with the timing requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 438. If the moving party is a defendant, the motion may only be made after the “defendant has already filed his or her answer to the complaint and the time for the defendant to demur to the complaint has expired.” See Code Civ. Proc., § 438(f)(2) (emphasis added).

Here, Defendant filed its Answer to the operative Complaint on April 25, 2023. That same day, Defendant filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Accordingly, Defendant did not wait until Plaintiff’s time to demur to the Answer expired and the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was premature and therefore not properly presented to the Court.

Second, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged their breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief claims. 

Defendant’s main argument is that it did not sign the agreement. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that, for purposes of this motion, that the signatures and language on page 42 sufficiently establish that Defendant is a party to the contract. Without considering evidence outside the pleadings, the signatures on page 42 appear to establish that Farmers Insurance Exchange is an officer that “signed below” at the request of the company named on the Declarations. 

Plaintiffs also alleged in their Complaint that “Defendants issued the Policy, which provides coverage for, among other things, replacement cost of personal property (the “Personal Property”) and reimbursement of costs to repair damage to the Bourguignons’ residence incurred under certain loss conditions.” FAC, ¶ 10. This allegation states that both Defendants issued the policy and therefore both Defendants were parties to the insurance contract.

Defendants do not address any other elements of Plaintiff’s claims and the Court finds that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint sufficiently state a cause of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief at the pleadings stage of this case.

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.