Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV07601, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07601    Hearing Date: October 9, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 9, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion for Summary Adjudication

Moving Party: Plaintiffs KB Home Nevada Inc., KB Home Phoenix Inc., KB Home South Bay Inc., and KB Home

Responding Party: Defendant Steadfast Insurance Company

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION IS DENIED.

PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2021, Plaintiffs KB Home Nevada Inc., KB Home Phoenix Inc., KB Home South Bay Inc., and KB Home filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Steadfast Insurance Company and John J. Diemer, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentation. The insured Plaintiffs allege the insurer Defendant Steadfast refused to reimburse Plaintiffs for overpayments related to claims on homes built by Plaintiffs covered by the policies provided by Defendant.

EVIDENCE OBJECTIONS

“In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion.” (CCP § 437c(q).) Plaintiff’s objections nos. 5, 7-12 are OVERRULED.

ANALYSIS

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).)

Plaintiffs move for summary adjudication of Defendant’s statute of limitations affirmative defenses.

The insurance coverage at issue in this action was in effect from 2003-2006. Plaintiffs present evidence showing they made claims for reimbursement on these policies in 2018 and 2019. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant did not issue a denial of these claims before Plaintiffs filed suit in 2021. Plaintiffs argue that the statute of limitations for wrongful denial of insurance coverage does not accrue until the insurer denies coverage, breaching the insurance agreement.

The statute of limitations begins to run when a party knows or should know the facts essential to a claim. (Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143). In opposition, Defendant presents evidence showing that Plaintiffs already had tendered claims, and the parties settled the claims relating to the subject insurance policies, in 2008-2014. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to the statute of limitations affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs have not shown as a matter of law that they may revive an expired claim under the “unconditional denial” standard in Vu v. Prudential Property & Cas. Co. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1142, 1149 and its progeny.

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.