Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV45661, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45661    Hearing Date: September 26, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

            On 12/15/2021, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff) filed suit against Roberto, Gonzalez, Maria G. Lopez, Gonzalez, Roberto Gonzalez Lopez, Martin Garcia Laguna, and Antonio Carias (collectively, Defendants), alleging declaratory relief.

            Now, Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Factual Background

            This action arises out an insurance claim involving an automobile accident that occurred on 4/25/2021. Roberto Lopez was allegedly driving his parents Lexus when he struck a Dodge Ram driven by Martin Garcia Laguna and containing passenger Antonio Carias.

Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the Roberto Lopez and Maria Gonzalez for their claims for damages sustained to the Lexus. Plaintiff alleges there is no insurable interest in the Lexus because it was an unrecovered stolen vehicle that was actually owned by State Farm. Plaintiff alleges that Roberto Gonzalez, Roberto Lopez, and Maria Gonzalez made multiple false statements in their application for insurance, and failed to cooperate in Plaintiff’s claim investigation.

Discussion

            Defendants’ demurrer is premised on the argument that Plaintiff’s claim fails because Martin Laguna has filed a cross-complaint against the Gonzalez family stemming from the accident, and until “there is a final determination that the claim is not within the coverage of the policy, [Plaintiff] has a duty to defend.” (Demurrer, 5: 8-9.)

            However, on 8/5/2022, Martin Laguna dismissed his cross-complaint, without prejudice, thereby rendering this argument moot.

            To the extent that Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege fraud with the requisite specificity, this argument fails. Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth clear allegations as to the “who, when, how, and to whom” of the alleged fraud. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645; See Complaint ¶ 27.)

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is overruled.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.