Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV10051, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10051    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 52

Defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC (erroneously sued as Hertz Corporation) moves to strike portions of plaintiff Elmer Smith’s complaint regarding punitive damages. Courts may strike allegations related to punitive damages where the facts alleged cannot support recovery of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 64.) An insurer’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not, on its own, suffice for punitive damages. (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1080.) The plaintiff must still meet the standards of pleading and proof under Civil Code section 3294.

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to constitute malice. “ ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(c)(1).) “ ‘Nonintentional conduct comes within the definition of malicious acts punishable by the assessment of punitive damages when a party intentionally performs an act from which he knows, or should know, it is highly probable harm will result.’ ” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 907.)

Plaintiff alleges he notified Hertz of a lawsuit against him in 2019. (Comp., ¶ 20.) He further alleges, “Hertz refused to provide coverage and refused to provide any defense for plaintiff against the lawsuit. Plaintiff emailed [Hertz’s representative] numerous times pleading for a defense.” (Id., ¶ 21.) In one email reply, Hertz’s representative “clearly stated that Hertz provides coverage during personal driving, including auto liability coverage,” but “being a co-defendant with you does not extend to a legal defense to you. Hertz will only defend their own interests in this matter.” (Ibid.) When plaintiff retained counsel and again demanded a defense, “Hertz admitted to providing liability coverage but refused to provide a defense to plaintiff.” (Id., ¶ 25.)

The complaint alleges defendant “knew, or in the exercise of good faith reasonably should have known, that plaintiff was legally entitled to recover the benefits under the aforementioned insurance coverage and legally entitled to a defense against claims, and that Defendant was obligated to” provide them. (Comp., ¶ 39.) “However, Defendant still denied Plaintiff’s claim anyway and failed to provide him with a defense.” (Ibid.)

The court must accept as true the allegation that Hertz knew plaintiff was entitled insurance coverage and a defense. Refusing to provide coverage and a defense that Hertz knew it owed plaintiff can reasonably be characterized as despicable conduct done with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights.

Disposition

Defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC’s motion to strike is denied.

Defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC is ordered to answer within 20 days.