Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV02832, Date: 2024-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02832    Hearing Date: August 26, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff Zane Murdock (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, filed a complaint against Defendant State Farm Insurance alleging five causes of action for (1) assault and battery; (2) general negligence; (3) intentional tort; (4) motor vehicle tort; and (5) solicitation to commit a crime of violence.

Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, erroneously sued and served as State Farm Insurance (“State Farm”) demurs to all five causes of action on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.10, subdivision (e).  Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

ANALYSIS

1.     DEMURRER

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In testing the sufficiency of a cause of action, a court accepts “[a]s true all material facts properly pled and matters which may be judicially noticed but disregard contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  [A court also gives] the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.”  (290 Division (EAT), LLC v. City & County of San Francisco (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 439, 450 [cleaned up]; Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 280 [“in considering the merits of a demurrer, however, “the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)

Further, in ruling on a demurrer, a court must “liberally construe” the allegations of the complaint “with a view to substantial justice between the parties.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)  

In summary, “[d]etermining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the rule is that if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action shown, or although the plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under the facts alleged.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

A.    FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

State Farm argues all of Plaintiff’s causes of action against it fail because there is no private cause of action against the insurer of the driver or owner of the motor vehicle who allegedly struck Plaintiff.  In support, State Farm cites to Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, which held that California Insurance Code section 790.03 (Unfair Insurance Practices) does not provide third parties a private right of action against the insurers for misconduct in processing the insurance claim. (hereafter Moradi-Shalal).  The Court notes that Plaintiff does not assert a cause of action pursuant to Insurance Code section 790.03.

State Farm also cites to Krupnick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 185.  There, after settling their personal injury action against the driver, Plaintiffs sued the driver’s insurance company for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and liability for negligent or willful acts under Civil Code section 1714.  The Court held an insurer’s only duty is to indemnify the tortfeasor, and owes no duty to injured third parties.

Thus, to the extent Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action for “general negligence” and “intentional tort” are premised on State Farm’s alleged mishandling of Plaintiff’s claim, State Farm is correct that such actions would be barred, as State Farm does not owe third parties a duty of care in its administration of claims, nor do third parties have a private right of action for the intentional mishandling of claims.

State Farm also contends, “plaintiff has not alleged that defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company was the owner or operator of the motor vehicle which allegedly collided with the plaintiff while he was on his bike.  Indeed, the complaint alleges that defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company was the insurer of the driver whose vehicle allegedly collided with the plaintiff while he was on his bike.”  (Demurrer at p. 5)

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following general allegations:

9.  On August 8, 2023 Defendant struck Plaintiff with a motor vehicle or induced an assault and battery against Plaintiff.

10.  Plaintiff suffered injury and property damage as depicted in EXHIBIT A.

11.  Plaintiff has the following claim number with State Farm regarding the incident: 75-54K5-09F.

12.  State Farm offered to pay for Plaintiff’s medical attention and then State Farm refused.

13.  Plaintiff’s injuries require medical attention or future medical expense.

14.  Plaintiff has suffered either lost wages or earning capacity impairment due to injuries.

15.  Plaintiff seeks compensation of non-economic damages including pain and suffering, emotional distress, or impairment to quality of life.

16.  The at-fault Defendant actions appear intentional or reckless.

17.  Jurisdiction and venue appear proper as the events took place in this city and in this county, and this appears an unlimited civil case with amount over $35,000.

(Complaint ¶¶ 9-17.)

            With regard to the first cause of action for assault and battery, Plaintiff alleges the following:

18.  Plaintiff reincorporates the allegations stated in Paragraphs 1-17.

19.  State Farm represents a driver in a van that struck Plaintiff while on a bike in the roadway.

20.  State Farm acknowledges fault.

21.  Because the crime of violence lacked the essential elements of an accident, the crime appears intentional.

22.  Plaintiff suffers damages as a result of the assault and battery.

(Complaint ¶¶ 18-22.)

            The second through fifth causes of action incorporate those allegations by reference.  The second through fourth causes of action add the allegation that “Defendant was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to Plaintiff” (see Complaint ¶¶ 24, 27, 30) and that “Defendant negligently caused the damage to Plaintiff” (Id. ¶ 25); “Defendant intentionally caused the damage to Plaintiff” (Id. ¶ 28) and “Defendant is liable for using a motor vehicle to injure Plaintiff.”  (Id. ¶ 31.)

            The fifth cause of action additionally alleges, “The assault and battery appears in violation of USC 18 § 373(a) in that ‘Whoever, with intention that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be…find not more than one-half of the maximum fin prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both.”  (Complaint ¶ 33.)

            Thus, contrary to State Farm’s argument that Plaintiff only alleges State Farm mishandled the claim and does not allege State Farm was otherwise at fault for the collision itself, Plaintiff does allege that State Farm “struck Plaintiff with a motor vehicle or induced an assault and battery against Plaintiff.”  (Complaint ¶ 9.)  As such, viewing the entirety of the allegations, and construing them in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Complaint appears to allege that the driver of the van was either State Farm’s agent or that State Farm otherwise colluded with the driver to strike Plaintiff with the vehicle.  (See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) [“[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”] [internal quotations omitted].)  

            In other words, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged the ultimate facts to withstand a demurrer.  Ultimate facts are those “constituting the cause of action” or those upon which liability depends, e.g., duty of care, breach of the duty and causation (damages).  (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.)  “[T]he term ultimate fact generally refers to a core fact, such as an essential element of a claim. Ultimate facts are distinguished from evidentiary facts and from legal conclusions.”  (Central Valley General Hosp. v. Smith (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 501, 513 [cleaned up]; see also Rodriguez v. Parivar, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 739, 750–751 [“The elements of a cause of action constitute the essential or ultimate facts in a civil case”].) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court overrules State Farm’s Demurrer to the Complaint.  Further, State Farm shall file and serve an Answer to the Complaint on or before September 16, 2024. 

State Farm shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  August 26, 2024                                                     ___________________________

                                                                                    Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court