Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: The Estate of Frances Marsh v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Date: 2022-11-02 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant Fidelity National Title Group Inc. moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against Plaintiff the Estate of Frances Marsh.  For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

A “party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact . . . .”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies his or her initial burden by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”), § 437c(p)(2).)  Once the moving party meets that burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing MSJ to show, by reference to specific facts, the existence of a triable issue as to that affirmative defense or cause of action.  (Villacres v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App 4th 562, 575.) 

“[A] parent corporation is not liable for injuries of a subsidiary's employee in the absence of evidence establishing a duty owed by the parent corporation to the employee.”  (Waste Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 105, 110.)

Here, the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) asserts two causes of action against moving party Defendant Fidelity National Title Group Inc. (“FNTG”): tortious breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and unfair business practices.  These claims are predicated on the conduct of Defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company’s (“CTIC”) processing of Plaintiff’s insurance claim.

FNTG has presented evidence that CTIC, not FNTG, issued the title insurance policy that is the subject of this lawsuit.  (SSUMF 1, 12-14.)  FNTG did not control CTIC, and it was not involved in CTIC’s processing of Plaintiff’s insurance claim.  (SSUMF 21-22.)  And Sydney Sefick, the claims attorney that processed the insurance claim, is not an officer of FNTG, Inc.  (SSUMF 23-24, 26-28.)

Plaintiff concedes that FNTG is not a proper party to this lawsuit.  (Opp. at 2:11 and 20:18-19.)  Instead, Plaintiff contends that Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF) is a proper party.  Plaintiff has raised this issue in its motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is scheduled to be heard on November 23, 2022. 

Defendant FNTG has met its initial burden that it is not a proper party to this lawsuit and that the claims asserted against it lack merit.  Plaintiff has not met its shifted burden.  Accordingly, the motion is granted.

The parties’ evidentiary objections are not material to the disposition of this motion. (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(q).)

Moving party to give notice.