Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 21STCV20712, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV20712 Hearing Date: January 17, 2023 Dept: 55
STATE
FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. KURBANOV 21STCV20712
Hearing Date: 1/17/23,
Dept. 55
#6: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS TO
AZIZBEK KURBANOV'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT.
Notice: Okay
No
Opposition
MP:
Cross-Defendant INFINITY INSURANCE
COMPANY.
RP:
Summary
On 6/3/21, Plaintiff STATE FARM filed the Complaint
for declaratory relief as to rights or obligations under an insurance policy
regarding an alleged car accident in February 2021.
On 9/23/21, Defendant AZIZBEK KURBANOV filed the Cross-Complaint.
On 5/2/22, Defendant AZIZBEK KURBANOV filed a First
Amended Cross-Complaint against STATE FARM and three other alleged
insurers, for breach of contract, bad faith and unfair business practices,
alleging there was insurance coverage as to the rental of a TURO vehicle, and
an automobile accident driving it, on 2/12/19.
MP
Positions
Moving party requests an order granting judgment on
the pleadings, as to the First Amended Cross-Complaint, on grounds including
the following:
·
The rented 2017 Lexus RX350 is not a
covered vehicle under the Infinity policy and therefore Infinity has no duty to
defend or indemnify Kurbanov in connection with the February 12, 2019 accident
or the underlying action.
·
The only vehicle covered under the
Infinity Policy is Kurbanov’s “2016 Lexus ES 300H Sedan 4 Door.”
·
The Infinity Policy is attached as Exhibit
B to Kurbanov’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.
Tentative
Ruling
The unopposed motion is granted, without leave to amend.
The
Infinity insurance policy, attached to the First Amended Cross-Complaint, is
not worded to cover a temporarily rented vehicle as alleged. "Interpretation of an insurance policy
presents a question of law governed by the general rules of contract
interpretation." Davis v.
Farmers Ins. Group (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 100, 104. Accord GGIS Ins. Servs. v. Sup. Ct.
(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1506. “The
insurer's duty to indemnify runs to claims that are actually covered, in light
of the facts proved.” Buss v. Sup. Ct.
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 45.
The
failure to file a proper and timely opposition in trial court creates a waiver
of the issues on any appeal. Bell v.
Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602; Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v.
Haghverdian (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 683, 693. A judge in a civil case is not
"'obligated to seek out theories [a party] might have advanced, or to articulate
… that which … [a party] has left unspoken.'" Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992)
9 Cal. App. 4th 1677, 1686. In order to
obtain leave to amend, complainants must state how the allegations would be
amended in order to state a cause of action.
Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass'n (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 247, 253.