Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 23STCV22385, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV22385, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22385 Hearing Date: July 3, 2024 Dept: 74

Danny Young v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., et al.

Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Uncertainty

A demurrer for uncertainty will “not be sustained if the allegations are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues that must be met, even if the allegations of the complaint may not be as clear and detailed as might be desired.” (Bacon v. Wahrhaftig (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 599, 606.) “A demurrer for uncertainty will not lie where the ambiguous facts alleged are presumptively within the knowledge of the demurring party.” (Ibid.)

Here, the Court does not find that the Complaint is uncertain and therefore OVERRULES the demurrer of Defendants on the grounds of uncertainty. The Complaint differentiates between the parties and Defendants are apprised of the issues that they must meet.

Sufficiency of the First Cause of Action

To state a cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff must allege the following: (1) a third party’s breach of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff; (2) Defendants’ actual knowledge of that breach of fiduciary duties; (3) substantial assistance or encouragement by Defendants to the third party’s breach; and (4) Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff. (Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 328, 343.)

“[A]n insurer is not a fiduciary, and owes no obligation to consider the interests of its insured above its own.” (Village Northridge Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 913, 929.) An insurance adjuster also does not owe a fiduciary duty to the insured with whom the dispute lies. (Thompson v. Cannon (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1413, 1418.)

“[A]n insurer’s breach of its fiduciary-like duties is adequately redressed by a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the insurance contract.” (Tran v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1212.) “[C]ivil liability for aiding and abetting the commission of a tort, which has no overlaid requirement of an independent duty, differs fundamentally from liability based on conspiracy to commit a tort.” (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 823, fn. 10.)

“[T]here are two different theories pursuant to which a person may be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.” (American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1477.) “One theory, like conspiracy to breach a fiduciary duty, requires that the aider and abettor owe a fiduciary duty to the victim and requires only that the aider and abettor provide substantial assistance to the person breaching his or her fiduciary duty.” (Ibid.) “The second theory for imposing liability for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty arises when the aider and abettor commits an independent tort.” (Ibid.) “This occurs when the aider and abettor makes a conscious decision to participate in tortious activity for the purpose of assisting another in performing a wrongful act.” (Ibid.)

Here, given that Defendants Behm and Farmers do not owe a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot impose liability against Defendants under the first theory of aiding and abetting liability pursuant to American Master Lease, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1477. Plaintiff does not dispute the principle of law or argument advanced by Defendants that neither Defendant Farmers nor Defendant Behm owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty.

The Court also finds that the allegations of the Complaint are insufficient to impose liability against Defendants under the second theory articulated in American Master Lease, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1477. (Complaint, ¶¶ 55-59.) Plaintiff has failed to allege that actions of Defendants constituted an independent tort or identify an independent tort committed by Defendants. (Id.)

The Court therefore SUSTAINS the demurrer of Defendants to the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court finds that there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court sustains Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Defendants shall give notice.