Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case Number: 37-2023-00020698-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00020698-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 27, 2024

06/28/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2023-00020698-CU-BC-CTL ARYANA VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues, is DENIED.

Background Plaintiffs Arash Aryana and Hariklea Aryana ('Plaintiffs') brought this action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing after Defendant denied their claim for a loss resulting from a leaky water pipe.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs' losses were not covered by their insurance policy because the damage to the pipe itself was the result of wear and tear and deterioration, and the subsequent water damage was the result of seepage or leakage over a period of time.

Analysis As a preliminary matter, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's Evidentiary Objections Nos. 1-5. However, the Court does not rely on the statements objected to for the disposition of this motion.

Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate when all the papers submitted by the parties show there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code of Civ. Proc.

� 437c, subd. (c).) A defendant who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing each alleged cause of action is without merit. (Ibid.; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) A defendant can meet that burden by showing one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code of Civ. Proc. � 437c, subd. (p)(2).) If the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the cause of action or affirmative defense. (Code of Civ. Proc. � 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849-851.) If the plaintiff fails to meet that burden, the motion for summary judgment will be granted. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781.) A triable issue of material fact exists if the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying facts in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) The court must strictly construe the moving party's evidence and liberally construe the opposing party's Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089511 22 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ARYANA VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 37-2023-00020698-CU-BC-CTL evidence (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 838-39), and may not weigh the evidence or conflicting inferences. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 856.) Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot maintain any claim for breach of contract or breach of the covenant of good faith because it is undisputed that the contract at issue, Plaintiffs' insurance policy, expressly excludes losses from wear and tear and deterioration, and water damage due to seepage and leakage over time. (Def.'s Sep. Statement, No. 6.) Defendant contends the evidence presented in connection with this motion proves the losses Plaintiffs suffered were the result of wear and tear and deterioration and seepage or leakage over time, thus no triable issues of material fact remain.

However, the Court is not convinced that Defendant has met its initial burden that Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims. In support of its proposition that '[t]he leak existed for an extended time period but would have been intermittent and would only leak when the diverter valve was turned to the handheld position,' (Def.'s Sep. Statement, No. 14) Defendant offers the Declaration of Gerald Zamiski, a retained expert who declares that he was 'informed that the elbow assembly was part of a handheld shower arm used with a diverter valve. Thus, water would only leak when the diverter valve was positioned for handheld use.' (Declaration of Gerald Zamiski ('Zamiski Decl.') � 3.) Mr. Zamiski's determination is questionable as he declares that he was informed by an unidentified person that the pipe in question was situated in such a way that it only leaked intermittently and merely repeated the conclusion. Plaintiffs go on to dispute 'that the pipe failure was intermittent.' (Pl.s' Sep. Statement, No.

14.) Even if we assume that Defendant had met its initial burden, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence to show that triable issues of material facts exist. For example, Plaintiffs produced the '4XForensics Supplemental Report,' in which Plaintiffs' expert Bruce Agle concluded that the 'leak was of short duration' based on his review of video evidence submitted by the parties and that the results of the destructive testing he and Mr. Zamiski performed were consistent with a 'recent separation.' (Exhibit G to the Declaration of Barlett H. Williams ('Agle Report'), pg. 5.) Mr. Zamiski and Mr. Agle also disagree as to the cause of the leak. Where Mr. Zamiski characterizes the leak as a pinhole leak that grew gradually over time due to corrosion and deterioration, (Zamiski Decl. � 6) Mr. Agle notes that a solder fillet at the leak site had 'fractured and separated.' (Agle Report, pg. 4.) These differences in expert opinion create triable issues of material fact.

Summary Adjudication Summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action is appropriate if 'the cause of action has no merit? and if adjudication will completely dispose of the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., � 437c, subd.

(f)(1).) A party may adjudicate a cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for punitive damages or an issue of duty. (Ibid.) A defendant who moves for summary adjudication has the initial burden of showing the alleged cause of action is without merit. (Ibid.; Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 843.) A defendant can meet that burden by showing one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code of Civ. Proc., � 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs' first cause of action for breach of contract is DENIED because as described above, Plaintiffs may be able to prevail on the merits if the fact-finder(s) determine that their losses are covered under Defendants' policies.

Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs' second cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is DENIED because while Defendant contends that all of its actions in investigating and denying Plaintiffs' claims were reasonable and not in bad faith, it has not established what the standards for a reasonable investigation and reasonable denial of coverage are or how its actions meet those standards.

Defendant argues that the 'genuine dispute' doctrine, which may apply 'where the insurer denies a claim based on the opinions of experts.' (Fraley v. Allstate (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1292.) Here, there is no evidence that Defendant hired any expert to assess Plaintiffs' claim until after it had denied Plaintiffs' claims and after litigation had commenced. (See Zamiski Decl.) Defendant's motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages is DENIED.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs will not be able to show that it acted with malice, fraud, or oppression, but a factfinder may be able to reach that conclusion based on Defendant's refusal to alter its conclusions or revisit the site after being presented with reports and videos from plumbers and a public Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089511 22 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ARYANA VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 37-2023-00020698-CU-BC-CTL adjuster that run counter to Defendant's initial assessment.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089511 22