Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 20STCV24073, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.
2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.
3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.
Case Number: 20STCV24073 Hearing Date: February 27, 2023 Dept: 26
Superior Court of California
Rita
kahlenberg, Plaintiff, v. bamboo
insurance services inc., et al. Defendants. |
Case No.:
20STCV24073 Hearing Date: February 27, 2023 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant Demian Insurance and financial services’ motion for judgment
on the pleadings of catlin insurance company, inc.’s cross-complaint |
Procedural Background
On June
25, 2020, Plaintiff Rita Kahlenberg (“Kahlenberg”) filed the complaint in this
action for breach of insurance contract arising out of the denial of an
insurance claim for severe water damage.
On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff Kahlenberg filed the operative Second
Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against defendants Bamboo Ide8 Insurance Services,
LLC[1]
(“Bamboo Ide8”), Catlin Insurance Company, Inc. (“Catlin”), and Demian
Insurance & Financial Services, Inc. (“Demian”). The operative Second Amended Complaint
asserts five causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract against Defendant
Catlin, (2) Tortious Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing against Defendant Catlin, (3) Financial Elder Abuse against Defendant
Catlin, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Defendant Demian, and (5)
Professional Negligence against Defendant Demian.
On
July 29, 2020, Cross-Complainant Catlin filed a cross-complaint. On September 1, 2021, Cross-Complainant
Catlin filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint against
Cross-Defendants Kahlenberg, Heidi Smith (“Smith”), and Demian asserting that
Kahlenberg and Smith misrepresented uninsurable conditions at the Property and
seeking indemnity against Demian. Catlin’s
Second Amended Cross-Complaint asserts eight causes of action for (1) Recission
against Kahlenberg and Smith, (2) Declaratory Relief against Kahlenberg and
Smith, (3) Breach of Contract to Defend, Indemnify, and Hold Harmless against
Demian, (4) Express Indemnity against Demian, (5) Implied/Equitable Indemnity
against Demian, (6) Declaratory Relief re: Duty to Defend against Demian, (7)
Declaratory Relief re: Duty to Indemnify against Demian, and (8) Contribution
against Demian.
On November
7, 2022, Cross-Defendant Demian filed the instant motion for judgment on the
pleadings of Cross-Complainant Catlin’s Second Amended Cross-Complaint. On February 10, 2023, Catlin filed an
opposition. On February 17, 2023, Demian
filed a reply.
Allegations of the
Operative Complaint and Cross-Complaint
The
SAC alleges that:
On
April 25, 2019, Plaintiff Kahlenberg sustained a serious head injury requiring
rehabilitation and payment of medical expenses, which caused Plaintiff and her late
husband to take out a mortgage on their home at 12760 Kahlenberg Lane, Valley
Village, CA 91607 (“Subject Property”).
(SAC ¶¶ 5, 14.) The mortgage company
required that Plaintiff and her late husband obtain additional insurance to
cover the Subject Property and arranged for Demian to submit an application for
insurance to Catlin on July 24, 2019 in response to which Catlin issued an
insurance policy the same day. (SAC ¶¶
11, 14.) On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff’s
late husband passed away. (SAC ¶
14.)
On
September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Kahlenberg was discharged from rehabilitation and
began residing back at the Subject Property.
(SAC ¶ 16.) On September 22,
2019, Plaintiff discovered a pipe leak that flooded the entire interior of the
house with water. (SAC ¶ 17.) Plaintiff timely notified Catlin of the
losses sustained as a result of the September 22, 2019 water leak and submitted
a claim. (SAC ¶ 22.) Plaintiff fully cooperated with Catlin’s
claim investigation. (SAC ¶¶ 22-26.) On May 8, 2020, Catlin wrongly denied the
insurance claim on the grounds that Plaintiff was not occupying the Subject
Property at the relevant time period and that the damage was excluded as wear
and tear and as a continuous leak or seepage.
(SAC ¶ 26.) On June 4, 2020,
Defendant sent Plaintiff a notice of non-renewal of the insurance policy. (SAC ¶ 29.)
In October 2020, Catlin “informed Plaintiff, during the course of
litigation, that it was rescinding the Policy based on alleged
misrepresentations in the insurance application, all of which Defendant had
known since at least September 24, 2019, and which constituted some of the
bases for the claim denial. That insurance application was completed and
submitted by Demian, and never shown to Plaintiff or her husband or signed by
either of them.” (SAC ¶ 30.)
Catlin’s
Cross-Complaint alleges that:
“On
September 19, 2018, Hany Demian and Bamboo Ide8 Insurance Services, LLC (‘Bamboo’)
entered into a Producer Agreement (the ‘Producer Agreement’), whereby Bamboo
agreed that Hany Demian could act as a non-exclusive producer, marketing and
placing insurance products as Bamboo may offer for insurance companies which
have appointed Bamboo to do so. The Producer Agreement includes an explicit
indemnity provision, whereby Hany Demian agreed to indemnify Bamboo and Catlin
Insurance Company, Inc. (defined as ‘Company’), as an insurance company which
has appointed Bamboo as its general agent, for all costs and claims arising out
of Hany Demian’s acts or breaches of the Producer Agreement, as follows:
14.
INDEMNIFICATION. Producer shall indemnify and hold BAMBOO and Company harmless
from any and all costs, claims or demands (including reasonable attorney fees
and expenses, whether incurred prior to the commencement of formal legal
action, or at the trial, or appellate court level), resulting from any
unauthorized acts of Producer, or any breach of any of the provisions of this
Agreement by Producer. BAMBOO shall have the right of off-set pursuant to
Section 4(c) above, for the purpose of indemnifying BAMBOO.”
(Catlin
SACC ¶ 8, Exh. D.)
On
July 24, 2022, Kahlenberg through her insurance broker, Demian submitted an
application for homeowners’ insurance to Catlin. (Catlin SACC ¶¶ 9-14.) In reliance on the representations in the
application, Catlin issued a homeowners policy to Kahlenberg for the period of
July 24, 2019 to July 24, 2020. (Id.
¶ 15.)
On
September 23, 2019, Smith on behalf of Kahlenberg reported water damage to the
property from a leaking supply line on the toilet located on the second floor
that caused significant damage. (Id.
¶ 17.) Catlin investigated the claim. (Id. ¶¶ 18-33.) During the investigation, Catlin discovered
that multiple representations made by Kahlenberg in her application for
homeowner insurance were false. (Id.
¶ 39.) Kahlenberg represented in the
application that the Property did not have a pool or hot tub, but the property
had both. (Id. ¶ 40.) Kahlenberg represented in the application
that the Property did not have any unrepaired damage or known potential defects
which was untrue because the Property had an empty pool surrounded by a broken
fence which created a falling risk to Kahlenberg and other visitors. (Id. ¶¶ 41-42.) The Property also had many unused vehicles
and other obstacles creating danger and long-term water damage to the flooring
and walls. (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) Finally, Kahlenberg misrepresented in the
application that the Property was newly acquired despite having owned the
Property for over 40 years. (Id.
¶ 45.)
“Following
its investigation, on May 8, 2020, Catlin declined coverage for the Loss and
Kahlenberg’s claims on the bases that the Property was not occupied on a
continuous basis within the 30 days prior to the date of the Loss, that
Kahlenberg, both on her own and by those acting on her behalf, knowingly
concealed or misrepresented material facts in connection with the presentation
of the claim, and that Kahlenberg and Smith failed to submit to and/or complete
Examinations Under Oath, thereby prejudicing Catlin’s investigation.” (Id. ¶ 34.)
Legal
Standard
A motion for judgment on the pleadings has
the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer
has expired. (CCP § 438(f).) Except as
provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Civic
Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1012.) “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion
[for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged
pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial
notice.” (Id. at 1013.) In ruling on a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, “[a]ll allegations in the complaint and
matters upon which judicial notice may be taken are assumed to be true.” (Rippon
v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 438 subdivision (c) subsection (1) provides a motion
for judgment on the pleading may only made on one of the following grounds:
(A)
“[i]f
the moving party is a plaintiff, that the complaint states facts sufficient to
constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer
does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint;
(B)
If
the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist:
i.
The
court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the
complaint;
ii.
The
complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against that defendant.
Meet and Confer
Per Code of Civil Procedure section 439
subdivision (a), before filing a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this
chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with
the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on
the pleadings for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be
reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion for
judgment on the pleadings...” (CCP § 439(a).) The moving party shall file and
serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration concerning
the parties meet and confer efforts.
(CCP § 439(a)(3).)
Here,
Cross-Defendant Demian has sufficiently met and conferred. (McCormick Decl. ¶ 3.)
Discussion
Cross-Defendant
Demian contends that Catlin’s entire Second Amended Cross-Complaint fails
because indemnity clause in the producer agreement is inapplicable based on the
alleged conduct.
“[I]ndemnity
refers to ‘the obligation resting on one party to make good a loss or damage
another party has incurred.’ ” (Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric
Co. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.)
“There are two basic types of indemnity: express indemnity, which relies
on an express contract term providing for indemnification, and equitable
indemnity, which embraces ‘traditional equitable indemnity’ and implied
contractual indemnity.” (Jocer
Enterprises, Inc. v. Price (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 559, 573.)
“Express indemnity generally
is not subject to equitable considerations or a joint legal obligation to the
injured party; rather, it is enforced in accordance with the terms of the
contracting parties' agreement. [Citation.] In the context of noninsurance
indemnity agreements, if a party seeks to be indemnified for its own active
negligence, or regardless of the indemnitor's fault, the contractual language
on the point ‘must be particularly clear and explicit, and will be construed
strictly against the indemnitee.’ [Citations.]”
(Prince, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p.1158.) “Since indemnity agreements are construed
under the same rules which govern the interpretation of other contracts, the
indemnity agreement must be interpreted so as to give effect to the mutual
intention of the parties. [Citations.] In interpreting an express indemnity
agreement, the courts look first to the words of the contract to determine
the intended scope of the indemnity agreement.”
(City of Bell v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 236,
247.)
Here,
the indemnity clause at issue provides that:
14.
INDEMNIFICATION. [Demian] shall indemnify and hold BAMBOO and [Catlin] harmless
from any and all costs, claims or demands (including reasonable attorney fees
and expenses, whether incurred prior to the commencement of formal legal
action, or at the trial, or appellate court level), resulting from any
unauthorized acts of [Demian], or any breach of any of the provisions of this
Agreement by [Demian]. BAMBOO shall have the right of off-set pursuant to
Section 4(c) above, for the purpose of indemnifying BAMBOO.”
(Catlin
SACC ¶ 8, Exh. D.)
Thus,
under a plain reading of the indemnity clause, the clause is applicable for
claim arising from unauthorized acts of Demian or breaches of the
agreement. Here, the SAC complaint
alleges that Demian submitted an inaccurate insurance application to Catlin
without the Plaintiff’s or Plaintiff’s husband consent. (SAC ¶¶ 30, 51-65.) Catlin’s Second Amended Cross-Complaint
further alleges that Demian “submitted a homeowners Policy Application to
Catlin on behalf of Kahlenberg seeking insurance for the Property that
contained inaccurate information which was material to the risks to be insured
under Catlin’s Policy, and that Catlin issued the Policy to Plaintiff in
reliance upon the representations in the Application.” (Catlin SACC ¶ 7.) Thus, the SAC and Catlin’s Second Amended
Cross-Complaint allege that Demian submitted an insurance application with
material inaccuracies without authorization which resulted in Catlin issuing
the insurance policy and eventually denying the claim. This is sufficient to allege liability under
the indemnity clause. Demian did an
unauthorized act – i.e., submitting an insurance application without
authorization – which contained material inaccuracies – in violation of the
producer agreement – that resulted in Catlin denying the claim and the instant
action being initiated against Catlin for wrongful denial of the claim.
Demian’s
reliance on City of Bell v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th
236 is misplaced. the court analyzed an
indemnity agreement contained in an employment contract between the City of
Bell and its former employee, Robert Rizzo. (Id. at p. 252.) In that
case, the City alleged Rizzo used his position to misappropriate City funds,
and filed suit seeking to recover the misappropriated funds. (Ibid.)
Rizzo sought to have the City indemnify him against claims brought by the
Attorney General – on behalf of the City of Bell – for his wrongdoing. (Ibid.)
There the indemnity clause in the agreement stated, in part:
City shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify Employee against any
claim, demand, judgment or action, of any type or kind, arising out of any act
or failure to act, by Employee, if such act or failure was within the course
and scope of Employee's employment. City may compromise and settle any such
claim or suit provided City shall bear the entire cost of any such settlement.
(Rizzo, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p.243.)
The
Court of Appeal reasoned that the language in the last sentence of the
indemnity provision permitting the City to “settle any such claim” could only
be reasonably interpreted as encompassing third party claims because, “[t]he
idea that the City ‘may compromise and settle’ a suit brought by the City
against Rizzo, if it pays itself the settlement amount, would make no sense
whatever.” (Id. at p.252.) Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded the
indemnity provision contained in the employment agreement applied only to third
party claims. (Ibid.)
Here,
there is a clear claim by a third party.
Moreover, the claim against Demian is for its own wrongdoing – i.e.,
submitting the inaccurate claim. Thus,
the reasoning in City of Bell is inapplicable to the instant action.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendant Demian Insurance & Financial
Services, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of Cross-Complainant
Catlin Insurance Company, Inc.’s Second Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED.
Moving Party is
to give notice and file proof of service of such.
DATED: February 27, 2023 ___________________________
Elaine
Lu
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1] On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed Bamboo Ide8
Insurance Services, LLC from the Second Amended Complaint without
prejudice.