Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Jilany v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Management Conference

The CMC is continued to 11/17/22 at 2 pm.

Demurrer

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s demurrer is overruled.

Defendant shall file its answer, if at all, within 10 days.

4th cause of action, intentional misrepresentation.  The SAC now alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action. 

The SAC alleges with adequate specificity that a named investigator told plaintiff over the phone in October 2019 that defendant needed to further inspect the vehicle with the intention of inducing plaintiff to deliver it to defendant, knowing no further inspection was actually needed and that defendant would simply retain the vehicle.  (SAC ¶¶ 46-48.)  It also alleges plaintiff relied on the representation by delivering the vehicle, thereby suffering damages when defendant failed to return it.  (Ibid.)

These allegations sufficiently support this claim, even if we put the “financial documents” issue to the side.  (See Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 [no partial demurrers].)

5th cause of action, negligence.  The SAC now alleges facts sufficient to constitute this cause of action.  It alleges defendant damaged the vehicle.  (SAC ¶ 53.) 

That is not a claims handling issue.  It is a breach of the duty of care we all owe each other not to damage another’s property.  (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a).)

While defendant doubts plaintiff could know the condition of the vehicle if plaintiff never regained possession, “[t]he question of a plaintiff's ability to prove the allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof, does not concern the [] court and plaintiffs need only plead facts showing that they may be entitled to some relief.”  (Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1103.)

Defendant shall give notice.