Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV00040, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV00040 Hearing Date: April 25, 2025 Dept: F43
Dept. F43
Date: 04-25-25
Case # 22CHCV00040, Coates v. Interinsurance
Exchange of the Automobile Club
Trial Date: None set.
DEMURRER
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Interinsurance
Exchange of the Automobile Club
RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Order sustaining demurrer to the complaint’s First
and Second Causes of Action.
RULING: Demurrer
to the complaint’s First and Second Causes of Action is sustained with leave to
amend.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On January 18, 2022, plaintiff James Coates
(Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the
Automobile Club (Defendant), alleging breach of contract and bad faith causes
of action. Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and punitive damages. Plaintiff
is self-represented.
On March 24, 2025, Defendant filed a demurrer
alleging that the complaint is uncertain and fails to allege sufficient facts
to constitute causes of action. No
opposition has been filed.
MEET AND CONFER
Before filing a demurrer, the parties must
meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The moving party must file and serve a meet
and confer declaration stating either: (1) the means by which the parties met
and conferred, that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the issues
raised in the demurrer; or (2) that the party who filed the pleading subject to
the demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request or failed to meet
and confer in good faith. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a)(3).) On
February 19, 2025, defense counsel left a voicemail with Plaintiff requesting a
call back to meet and confer about the demurrer. (Declaration of Tina M. Bhatia, ¶ 2.) On March 20, 2025, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff
explaining the bases for the demurrer.
(Bhatia Dec., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)
Plaintiff never responded by phone or email. (Bhatia Dec., ¶ 4.)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to
plead the existence of a contract, by its terms or legal effect, or to set
forth the dates on which the alleged insurance agreement was in force. The complaint also fails to allege the date
of the underlying auto accident. The
complaint is unclear as to whether the second cause of action is a common count
or a bad faith claims handling cause of action.
Additionally, actions based on an express contract may not be pleaded by
common count if Plaintiff seeks either damages or specific performance.
Plaintiff does not oppose.
ANALYSIS
Legal
Standard
A¿ party may respond to a pleading against it by demurrer
based on any single or combination of eight enumerated grounds,
including¿that¿“the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action” and is uncertain, meaning “ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e),
(f).) The grounds for demurring must be
apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court
may take judicial notice. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d
311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is
to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153
Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the
construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its
allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice
between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 452.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer
as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions
or conclusions of fact or law[.]” (Berkley
v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.)
In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint
to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School
Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)
Defendant’s
demurrer is timely.
If parties are unable to meet and confer at least five
(5) days before the responsive pleading is due, section 430.41 grants the
demurring party an automatic 30-day extension within which to file a responsive
pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41,
subd. (a)(2).) The demurring party must
file and serve on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a
declaration stating reasons for failing to meet and confer. (Ibid.) The 30-day extension commences on the date the
responsive pleading was originally due. (Ibid.)
On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff personally served the
summons and complaint on Defendant. The
original deadline for Defendant to file a responsive pleading was Thursday, February
20, 2025. On February 20, 2025,
Defendant filed and served a declaration to automatically extend the time to
file a responsive pleading by 30 days pursuant to Civil Procedure section
430.41. Plaintiff does not oppose the
declaration. Therefore, the time to file
a responsive pleading was extended to March 24, 2025, and Defendant timely
filed its demurrer that same day.
First
Cause of Action: Breach of Written Contract
Defendant demurs to the First Cause of Action because the
complaint is uncertain and fails to allege the existence of a contract.
To plead breach of contract, a complaint must allege
facts showing (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or
excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to
plaintiff. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v.
Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821; Aton
Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214,
1230.)
“In an action based on a written contract, a plaintiff
may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise
language.” (Construction Protective
Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189,
198-99. But see Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307
[requiring plaintiff to attach a copy of the contract or to set out the terms
verbatim in the body of the complaint].)
Pleading contracts by legal effect involves alleging the relevant terms
in substance. (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457,
1489.)
The complaint fails to plead the existence of a written
contract. Plaintiff does not attach a
copy of the alleged contract or allege the contract’s terms and legal
effect. The complaint alleges that
Defendant entered into a contract (Compl., ¶ 7.a.), that defendant breached the
contract (Compl., ¶ 8.), and that Plaintiff seeks $15,000.00 in damages and 10
percent interest per year since the alleged breach. (Compl., Attachment 9.) These facts are insufficient to establish the
terms of the contract, the contract’s legal effect, or Plaintiff’s performance or
excuse from performance. The complaint
is also uncertain because Plaintiff does not allege what conduct caused the
alleged breach.
Therefore, Defendant’s demurrer to the First Cause of Action
for breach of contract is sustained.
Second
Cause of Action: Bad Faith Claims Handling
Next, Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for
being uncertain and failing to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of
action. Defendant contends that the
complaint is unclear concerning whether Plaintiff pleads a common count or a
bad faith handling cause of action. Plaintiff
cannot plead both a common count and a breach contract.
Based on the complaint filed in the case docket,
Plaintiff does not plead any common counts.
Therefore, this argument fails.
The complaint does allege a “Bad Faith” cause of
action. (Compl., ¶ 8.)
The elements of a bad faith claims handling cause of
action are: (1) that the insurer has withheld benefits due under a policy, and
92) that the withholding was unreasonable or without proper cause. (Major v. Western Home Ins. Co. (2009)
169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209.) Conduct
constituting bad faith handling includes denying benefits due, paying less than
due, and unreasonably delayed payments due.
(Ibid.)
Plaintiff fails to allege an insurance policy or
agreement under which benefits were due.
Plaintiff also fails to allege Defendant unreasonably denied or withheld
any benefits. “Attachment 9” states that
Plaintiff seeks $15,000.00 in punitive damages and $30,000.00 in emotional
distress damages. (Compl., Attachment
9.) However, Plaintiff does not state
what conduct justifies these damages.
Without further facts alleging an insurance policy or agreement,
Plaintiff fails to allege a bad faith claims handling cause of action.
Therefore, Defendant’s demurrer to the Second Cause of
Action is sustained.
Leave
to Amend
Defendant’s demurrer references several facts (insurance
agreement) and exhibits that do not appear anywhere in the complaint. (See Demurrer, p. 3:8-21 [discussing an
“Intro Letter” and a check issued by Defendant].) The only exhibit attached to the complaint is
a document titled “Monetary Compensation” which states the damages and fees
Plaintiff seeks to recover. The
complaint references other attachments (2A, 2b, 4A, 4b, 5A, and 5b), but it
appears that Plaintiff did not file these attachments with the complaint. (Compl., ¶ 11.)
Because these alleged facts and attachments suggest that
Plaintiff may be able to remedy the deficiencies in his causes of action, the
court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the
Automobile Club’s demurrer to the complaint’s First and Second Causes of Action
is sustained with leave to amend.
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty
(30) days of this order.
Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the
Automobile Club to give notice.