Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: BC631370, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC631370    Hearing Date: August 26, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     August 26, 2024                                 TRIAL DATE:  October 7, 2024

CASE:                         Susan Abusamra-Pixler, et al. v. U-Haul International Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 BC631370

GEICO’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR DISMISS CLASS ALLEGATIONS

MOVING PARTY:              Defendants Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO General Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Susan Abusamra-Pixler and Charles Pixler

I.          INTRODUCTION

This case stems from a car accident involving a 2005 Jeep Liberty (the “Vehicle”) and a U-Haul trailer.  The trailer was attached to and towed by the Vehicle.  The Vehicle was owned by Susan Abusamra-Pixler (“Susan”) and Charles Pixler (“Charles”) (the “Pixlers”).  At the time of the accident, Susan’s friend, Carla Noble (“Noble”) was driving the Vehicle with Susan as a passenger.  Susan suffered bodily injuries during the accident.  

Ms. Noble had insurance coverage with a policy limit of $100,000 for bodily injury.  The Pixlers and their Vehicle were separately insured by GEICO.  The Pixler’s GEICO insurance policy (the “Policy”) included bodily injury and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for up to $300,000 per person.  The Pixlers recovered the policy limit from Noble’s insurer.  Because the Pixlers’ Policy exceeded the policy limits of Noble’s insurance coverage, the Pixlers submitted a UIM claim to GEICO to recover the difference of $200,000.  GEICO denied the Pixlers’ claim on the grounds that the Owned Auto Exclusion in the Policy was consistent with Insurance Code section 11580.2(b) and expressly excluded UIM coverage for automobiles owned by an insured.

The Complaint

On August 23, 2016, the Pixlers (“Pixlers” or “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO General Insurance Company (collectively, “GEICO” or “Defendants”), among others.  The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) Strict Products Liability; (2) Negligence; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Declaratory Relief; (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and (8) Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment.  The Third, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action are brought as class claims.

Motions for Summary Adjudication

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary adjudication of their fifth cause of action for declaratory relief.  Plaintiffs sought an order confirming that Plaintiffs were covered by UIM provisions in their GEICO policy for the underlying accident. 

On the same day, GEICO filed a motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ fourth and sixth causes of action. 

On July 24, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the parties’ motions for summary adjudication.  After taking the matters under submission, the court issued a final ruling on July 25, 2024.  In the ruling, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication of the declaratory relief claim because the Policy language expressly excluded coverage for owned vehicles and the exclusion comported with the UIM provisions of the Insurance Code.  The court granted GEICO’s summary adjudication of the fourth and sixth causes of action because the court concluded GEICO properly denied Plaintiffs’ UIM claim. 

The Current Motion

On November 14, 2023, GECIO filed this Motion to Strike or Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Allegations (“Motion to Strike”). 

Given the court’s July 25, 2024 rulings and their impact on the viability of Plaintiffs’ class allegations, the court continued the hearing for the Motion To Strike to August 26, 2024, and invited the parties to submit additional briefing.  The court also set a Further Status Conference re: Further Proceedings for August 26, 2024, and directed the parties to file a status report no later than five court days before the status conference.

On August 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a status report.  In the report, Plaintiffs request a continuance of the Motion to Strike, the Final Status Conference, and Trial for sixty days to allow the parties to exhaust all settlement options before expending time and resources on trial preparation. 

On August 21, 2024, GEICO filed a response to the status report.  In the response, GEICO states it is agreeable to a 60-day continuance of the Final Status Conference and Trial but opposes a continuance of the Motion to Strike. 

            Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the court will continue the Final Status Conference and Trial.  Further, the court exercises its discretion to continue the hearing for the Motion to Strike.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)

II.        CONCLUSION

            GEICO’s Motion to Strike or Dismiss Class Allegations is CONTINUED to October 25, 2024.

The Final Status Conference is CONTINUED to October 21, 2024. 

The Trial is CONTINUED to November 4, 2024.

Clerk of the court to give notice, unless waived.

Dated:   August 26, 2024