Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV26872, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26872    Hearing Date: August 1, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Prime Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order granting summary judgment against Defendants Greenify, Amazon Logistics Inc. (“Amazon Logistics”), Good Brother’s, LLC (“Good Brother’s”), the Estate of Calvin Everhart, and Luis Valdes (collectively, “Defendants”).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication.

Moreover, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer about dismissing this lawsuit if all parties agree that the claims are moot.

Background

This is an insurance dispute. The following facts are taken from the parties’ separate statements.

Plaintiff issued insurance policy SC20030826 to Greenify effective March 10, 2020 to March 10, 2021 (the “Policy”). (Undisputed Fact (“UF”) 1.) The Policy is a business auto insurance policy that provides liability coverage for claims against the insured. (UF 2.) Coverage is limited to scheduled automobiles operated by scheduled drivers. (UF 3.)

Angie Sandoval is the CEO of Greenify. (Sandoval Decl. ¶ 1.) Sandoval was always the person responsible for purchasing Greenify’s insurance. (UF 19.) When Sandoval applied for the Policy, she scheduled driver Gary Shain on the Policy. (UF 20.) The Policy reflects that Gary Strain is the only scheduled driver. (Caffey Decl., Ex. A, DEF000007.) Sandoval does not recall if she notified Plaintiff of any other drivers that were to be scheduled on the Policy. (UF 21.) No one else at Greenify would have notified Plaintiff of any other scheduled drivers. (UF 22.) The Policy reflects that two vehicles were scheduled: a 2010 Kenworth heavy truck, and a 2020 non-owned trailer. (Caffey Decl., Ex. A, DEF000006.)

Greenify contracted with Amazon Logistics for transportation and delivery of goods. (UF 26.) Amazon Logistics is an additional insured on the Policy. (UF 15, 16.)

Greenify subcontracted some of its transportation and delivery services to Good Brother’s, L.L.C. (“Good Brother’s”). (UF 24-25.)

On July 23, 2020, an automobile collision occurred between another vehicle and a truck operated by Good Brother’s on behalf of Greenify. (UF 44-46, 50.) At the time of the accident, the Good Brother’s truck was operated by Defendant Calvin Everhart. (UF 44-46.) The collision resulted in Everhart’s death and serious bodily injury to Defendant Luis Valdes.

On September 24, 2020, Valdes filed a personal injury action, 20STCV36549 Luis Angel Valdez v. Good Brother’s LLC, et al. (the “Underlying Action”) against Greenify, Good Brother’s, the Estate of Everhart, and Amazon Logistics. (UF 49-52.)

Greenify’s attorney tendered the Underlying Action to Plaintiff on March 8, 2021. (UF 54.) Plaintiff issued reservation of rights letters dated May 25, 2021 to Greenify and June 15, 2021 to Amazon Logistics, in each of which Plaintiff asserted that there was no coverage for the underlying action. (UF 55.)

Plaintiff filed this action on July 21, 2021. The operative complaint is now the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which raises claims for (1) declaratory relief that Plaintiff has no duty to defend or indemnify Greenify, Amazon Logistics, Good Brother’s, and Everhart in the Underlying Action, and (2) indemnity for any sums expended for defense and indemnity on behalf of Greenify and Amazon Logistics related to the Underlying Action.

The Court takes judicial notice that the Underlying Action was dismissed on October 24, 2023 pursuant to Valdez’s request.

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on January 9, 2024. Greenify filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) 

“In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom [citation] and must view such evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations] in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar, supra, at pp. 844-845 [quotation marks omitted].) 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) 

“A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

 To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

Discussion

Indemnity – Second Claim

“An indemnitee seeking to recover on an agreement for indemnification must allege the parties’ contractual relationship, the indemnitee’s performance of that portion of the contract which gives rise to the indemnification claim, the facts showing a loss within the meaning of the parties’ indemnification agreement, and the amount of damages sustained.” (Four Star Electric, Inc. v. F & H Construction (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1380.)

Plaintiff’s separate statement does not reflect facts showing that Plaintiff expended any costs in defense of the Underlying Action.

The Court therefore denies summary adjudication on this claim.

Declaratory Relief – First Claim

“To qualify for declaratory relief, a party would have to demonstrate its action presented two essential elements: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the party’s rights or obligations.” (Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 872, 909, quotation marks and brackets omitted.)

Further, “there is no basis for declaratory relief where only past wrongs are involved.” (Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 357, 366, quotation marks omitted.)

Here, the Underlying Action has been dismissed. Plaintiff’s claim is therefore moot because there is no current controversy over Plaintiff’s coverage obligations that is eligible for declaratory relief.

The Court therefore denies summary adjudication on this claim.

The Court denies the motion for summary judgment.