Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCV01199, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01199    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 200

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse | Department 200

Background

            On July 22, 2022 Plaintiff Jonathan Bennett (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company. (“Defendant”).  The Complaint alleges in relevant part that Defendant failed to pay insurance benefits to Plaintiff for an insurance policy for a watch.

            Defendant now demurs to Plaintiff’s second cause of action.  Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.  Plaintiff did not file any opposition.

DEMURRER

Demurrer Standard

      A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.”  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.)  “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”  (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.) 

Analysis

            Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s second cause of action.  Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to allege that Defendant engaged in unreasonable conduct.  Defendant points the Court to Plaintiff’s allegations that it conducted an investigation as to the insurance claim filed by Plaintiff, and based on that investigation, denied Plaintiff the benefits due to him under the insurance policy.  (See Compl., 12.)  Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant acted in bad faith is contradicted by the allegations that Defendant properly investigated the claim before denying Plaintiff’s benefits.

To establish a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing for insurance claims, the plaintiff must establish: (1) benefits due under the policy must have been withheld; and (2) the reason for withholding benefits must have been unreasonable or without proper cause.  (Love v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1151.)  Unreasonable means without any reasonable basis for withholding such benefits.  (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1073.)  Allegations must demonstrate defendant’s conduct for failure or refusal to discharge contractual responsibilities was a conscious and deliberate act, not an honest mistake, bad judgment or negligence.  (Century Surety Co. v. Polisso (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 922, 949.)

            The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts to establish that it acted unreasonably in denying Plaintiff’s the benefits due under the insurance policy.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant chose to focus only on irrelevant facts and evidence in denying Plaintiff’s claim, but Plaintiff fails to allege what facts or evidence Defendant should have focused on when considering the claim.  In addition, the allegations show that Defendant conducted an investigation, and based on that investigation, it withheld benefits to Plaintiff.  There are no allegations that Defendant deliberately failed to consider facts or evidence, and Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are sufficient to show that Defendant acted unreasonably.

            Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition and explain to the Court how this cause of action can be amended to render it sufficient.  (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290 [The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”])

            Thus, Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion to Strike Standard

            Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(b).)  The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) 

Analysis

            Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s allegations supporting a claim for punitive damages, and his prayer for relief for punitive damages.

            California Civil Code section 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .”  (Civ. Code § 3294(a).)  Punitive damages thus require more than the mere commission of a tort. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95.)  Specific facts must be pleaded in support of punitive damages. (See Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-92.)  California Civil Code section 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .” (Civ. Code § 3294(a).)  “‘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.”  (Id. § 3294(c)(1).)  Punitive damages thus require more than the mere commission of a tort.  (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95.) Specific facts must be pleaded in support of punitive damages. (See Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-92.)  

            A review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is based on his second cause of action.  (See Compl., ¶¶ 13, 16.)  Based on the ruling above, and the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds that there are no facts to support a claim for punitive damages.

            Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition and explain to the Court how he can amend his Complaint to properly plead a claim for punitive damages.

             Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

Conclusion

            Defendant’s Demurer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend.  In addition, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

Dated: October 13, 2022

__________________________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court