Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCV21286, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21286 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 26
Delshad v. National General Insurance Company
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Agent Alliance Insurance Company’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Jonathan Delshad. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant
action against Defendants National General Insurance Company, Juana Elvia
Contreras, and Katherine Anne Yording on June 30, 2022. Plaintiff filed the
operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants Agent Alliance Insurance
Company, Juana Elvia Contreras, and Katherine Anne Yording (collecticely
“Defendants”) alleging bad faith, breach of contract, and negligence.
On January 26, 2024, Defendant Agent Alliance Insurance
Company (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion for summary judgment. On March
28, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. To date, no reply has been filed.
Discussion
Plaintiff alleges he rented an RV
to Defendants Contreras and Yording through the RVShare platform, where
Plaintiff’s vehicle was insured under the policy of insurance issued and or
underwritten by National General Insurance Company [sic]. (Compl. ¶ 8.)
Plaintiff claims that Defendant refused to pay the claim for payment and/or
reimbursement of a collision loss that was incurred on the grounds that the
damage in the policy period was from a prior claim period. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Plaintiff brings a bad faith claim against Defendant for refusing to pay the
claim without reason, a breach of contract claim against Defendants on the
grounds that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff benefits and Cotnreras and
Yording failed to pay certain amounts for the damage caused by their use of the
rental car, and negligence against Defendants for failing to take good care and
return the vehicle to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 17-41.)
Legal Standard
On a motion for summary adjudication of a particular cause
of action, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no defense by proving
each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that
cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Then the burden
shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material
facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (p)(1).) In ruling on the Motion, the Court must view the “evidence
[citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the
opposing party.” (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72,
81 [citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826,
843].)
Procedural Issues
Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the motion on the
grounds that Defendant failed to comply with the requirements for a Separate
Statement under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(1), (3) by failing to
separately identify the “facts” relevant to each cause of action. The Court
finds that Defendant has substantially complied with this requirement and finds
that it is not a sufficient ground for denying the motion. (See Code Civ.
Proc., §437c subdiv. (b)(1).)
Breach of Contract
“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract
are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for
nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff
therefrom.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164
Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)
Defendant argues that this claim fails because Plaintiff has
cannot show that he performed under the purported contract. Additionally,
Defendant states that Plaintiff admits to not having non-economic damages,
there is a discrepancy in repair costs and evidence, there is no evidence
related to the sale of the RV, and there is no evidence of any loss of use
damages. Defendant argues that Plaintiff breached the contract’s terms by
failing to provide proof of loss as required by the policy.
In opposition, Plaintiff points to evidence in the form of
photographs showing the damage to the RV, an appraisal of damages by an
appraiser, production of documents including repair estimates in response to
Defendant’s Request for Production, and information about non-economic damages
during Plaintiff’s deposition. (See Plaintiff’s Additional Material Undisputed
Facts “PAMF” nos. 1-10.) Accordingly, Defendant’s argument fails and Plaintiff
has created a triable issue. The motion or summary adjudication of the breach
of contract cause of action is DENIED.
Bad Faith
“An insurer is said to act in ‘bad faith’ when it breaches
its duty to deal ‘fairly’ and ‘in good faith’ with its insured. [Citation.] The
term ‘bad faith’ does not connote ‘positive misconduct of a malicious or
immoral nature’ [citation]; it simply means the insurer acted deliberately.” (Major
v. Western Home Ins. Co. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209, as modified on
denial of reh’g (Jan. 30, 2009) (“Major”).)
“[T]o establish the insurers’ ‘bad faith’ liability, the
insured must show that the insurer has (1) withheld benefits due under the
policy, and (2) that such withholding was ‘unreasonable’ or ‘without proper
cause.’ [Citation.]” (Major, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 1209.)
“The actionable withholding of benefits may consist of the denial of benefits
due [citation]; paying less than due [citation]; and/or unreasonably delaying
payments due [citation].” (Ibid.)
Defendant argues that it had a reasonable basis for denying
Plaintiff’s insurance claim because there was a genuine dispute as to the
accuracy and validity of Plaintiff’s claim when Plaintiff failed to perform
under the contract. However, the Court finds that Defendant has not shown that
there was no genuine dispute as to coverage, given Plaintiff’s evidence and
arguments that he complied with all the requirements for filing a claim and
that the “prior damage” exclusion does not apply. (PAMF nos. 10, 11-31.) Accordingly,
Defendant’s argument fails and Plaintiff has created a triable issue. The
motion or summary adjudication of the bad faith cause of action is DENIED.
Punitive Damages
Given the Court’s finding that there are triable issues of
fact as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract and bad faith claim, the Court finds
that Defendant’s denial of the insurance claim and failure to remedy the
alleged mistakes may support an award for punitive damages. Plaintiff also
provides evidence that Defendant’s insurance adjuster failed to respond to
Plaintiff, could not justify the denial, and failed to correct her mistakes.
(PAMF nos. 36-40.) Thus, the motion for summary adjudication as to punitive
damages is DENIED.
Attorney’s Fees
Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot recover attorney’s
fees because he is self represented. However, Plaintiff states that there is no
evidence that Plaintiff will not be self-represented at the time of trial and
that he may be entitled to attorney’s fees if he chooses to have representation
at any part of this case. The Court agrees and finds that Defendant is not
entitled to summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.
The motion for summary adjudication as to attorney’s fees is DENIED.
Conclusion
The Motion for Summary Judgment filed
by Defendant Agent Alliance Insurance Company on 1/26/24 is Denied.