Judge Shirley K. Watkins, Case 21VECV01729 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 21VECV01729, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21VECV01729 Hearing Date: March 15, 2023 Dept: T

21VECV01729 PAUL CASLAVKA, et al. vs STATE FARM

Tentative Ruling Re: Motion For Summary Judgment Or Alternatively Summary Adjudication

MSJ 3/15/2023

Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Summary Adjudication are DENIED in their entirety.

Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED but not as to hearsay or facts in dispute.

1. Introduction

Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (Defendant) moved for summary judgment (MSJ) and alternatively for summary adjudication (MSA) against Plaintiffs Paul and Nina Caslavka (Plaintiffs) Complaint. Defendant’s MSA asserted three issues: 1) Plaintiffs cannot establish a breach of contract cause of action (COA) because there is no breach of contract; 2) Plaintiffs cannot establish a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendant’s denial was improper and unreasonable; and 3) Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages fails because Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendant acted with malice oppression, or fraud.

2. Procedure

The Court ruled separately on Defendant's objections to the declarations of the Plaintiffs which were filed on 3/13/2023. The Court rules as follows on all of Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections to the Donna Blazewich declaration and attached exhibits: The lack of foundation objection is OVERRULED. The hearsay objection against the exhibits is OVERRULED because of the business records exception. However, the contents of the exhibits that refer to "facts" is hearsay and the objection is SUSTAINED. Further, Donna Blazewich's attestation to the "facts" within the exhibits is also hearsay and the objection is SUSTAINED. Defendant's response to the objections does not address the multiple hearsay issue. Defendant states in response to the objections: "[c]laims notes made in a claims log by claims personnel during the claims process are trustworthy and fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule. (Klem v. Access Ins. Co. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 595, 607." (Defendant's Response to Evid Obj. pg 4:2-4.) However, a close review of the citation shows that the Appellate Court was only addressing the document (i.e., the claims notes) and not the statements within the Claims Notes. The Court actually noted that the Claims Notes had a multiple hearsay issues but the insurer did not address the issues and the court deemed it forfeited. ("There remains a multiple hearsay issue as to statements within the claims log. (Alvarez v. Jacmar Pacific Pizza Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1205, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 [exception necessary “for each level of hearsay” (italics omitted)].) Access does not address this issue, and we deem it forfeited." (Id.)")

3. Discussion

Defendant asserted that there is no triable issue of fact as to: (1) the element of breach in the breach of contract COA; (2) the element of breach/impropriety/unreasonableness in the bad faith COA; and (3) the elements of malice, oppression or fraud in the punitive damages claim. On an MSJ/MSA, Defendant has the initial burden of proof to show that a cause of action has no merit if one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 437c(o) and (p).) Defendant’s arguments as to all three issues relied upon the insurance policy provision that excluded coverage for “continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system.” (Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts (DSSF) 2.) In support of this exclusion, Defendant submitted, as evidence, the declaration of Donna Blazewich, Defendant’s Claim Team Manager. Blazewich testified that the water intrusion was a continuous leakage and thus excluded from coverage. (DSSF 26: Blazewich Decl. par. 15, Exh. K.) However, Blazewich’s testimony was grounded on several “facts” that were placed into issue by Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections. As stated above, the Court sustained the hearsay objections as to “facts” presented in Blazewich’s declaration and “facts” stated within the attached exhibits. The Court found inadmissible the following testimony in Blazewich’s declaration and “facts” within the exhibits: Blazewich’s declaration pars. 3, 6-14 and Exhs. B, C, and E thru I. With the inadmissibility of the supportive “facts” relied upon to support her testimony that the leak was continuous, Blazewich’s testimony in paragraph 15 is conclusory. Because Blazewich’s testimony is conclusory, Defendant failed to establish that there is no triable issue of fact that the “continuous leakage” exclusion applied. Defendant failed to meet their initial burden to show that no triable issue of fact exists as to the two COAs and request for punitive damages. Because the burden was not met by Defendant, the burden did not transfer to Plaintiffs.

Even if the court were to consider the opposition, the Declarations of Jeffrey Frankel, George Pondella and Maribeth Danko, submitted by plaintiffs in opposition to the motion, create multiple triable issues of material fact on all causes of action.

The MSJ and MSA as to all three issues are DENIED.

_________________________________________________________________

21VECV01729 PAUL CASLAVKA, et al. vs STATE FARM

FSC 3/22/2023

Tentative rulings on Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiffs:

The court received 5 timely Motions in Limine filed by plaintiffs for the FSC set 3/22/2023. Pursuant to local rules, motions in limine are to be filed on statutory notice to be heard at the time of the FSC. Oppositions to these motions were due 9 court days prior to the hearing which would have been 3/9/2023. No oppositions have been received and are now untimely. The court issues its tentative rulings:

1. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific testimony and, therefore, finds the motion premature. If and when there is an objectionable question, and a timely objection is made, the court will rule on it at that time. However, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum. As there is no specific witness referenced or any specific opinions or testimony referenced, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.

2. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific topics or documents. The answer to this motion is "it depends." It depends on what was asked, what was answered, whether a motion to compel was made, and/or whether the court ordered further responses. Having not specific any particular witness deposition, or discovery request and response, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum. As there is no specific witness referenced or any specific topics or documents referenced, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.

3. The motion is denied without prejudice. First, there is no evidence what a "State Farm uniform" means. Second, there is no evidence that a jury may be likely to have a good experience with State Farm. Why would there not likely be evidence that a jury may have had a bad experience with State Farm? The question for the court is whether someone would be wearing something that they ordinarily be wearing to work, if this was a workday. This is not the same situation as a law enforcement officer wearing a uniform. There is no explanation what the "extreme prejudice" might be. The court will hear argument but the tentative is to deny without further information.

Tentative rulings on Motions in Limine filed by Defendant:

The court received 9 timely Motions in Limine filed by plaintiffs for the FSC set 3/22/2023. Pursuant to local rules, motions in limine are to be filed on statutory notice to be heard at the time of the FSC. Oppositions to these motions were due 9 court days prior to the hearing which would have been 3/9/2023. No oppositions have been received and are now untimely. The court issues its tentative rulings:

1. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific topics or documents. The answer to this motion is "it depends." It depends on what was asked, what was answered, whether a motion to compel was made, and/or whether the court ordered further responses. Having not specific any particular witness deposition, or discovery request and response, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum. As there is no specific witness referenced or any specific topics or documents referenced, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.

2. The court grants the motion to exclude witnesses from the courtroom pursuant to Evidence Code section 777 except that both plaintiffs may be in the courtroom at any time and a corporate representative of State Farm (only 1 person may be designated for the entire trial, no substitutions during trial) may be in the courtroom at any time. State Farm must designate that person prior to the start of voir dire.

3. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific testimony and, therefore, finds the motion premature. If and when there is an objectionable question, and a timely objection is made, the court will rule on it at that time. However, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum. As there is no specific witness referenced or any specific opinions or testimony referenced, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.

4. The court denies the motion to prevent the mentioning of an amount of damages being discussed in voir dire. It would be an abuse of discretion for the court to do so.

5. The court does not approve of omnibus motions and cannot speculate what is meant by the motion. As there is nothing specifically mentioned in terms of a particular conversation or a particular note or email or a particular letter, the court will not speculate. It should not be left to each sides' subjective determination of what constituted a "settlement discussion." In the abstract, the motions is denied without prejudice. If there is something specific, it should be disclosed to the court.

6. The court grants the motion to preclude the admission of evidence of the defendant's profits or financial condition per CCP section 3295(d) until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding plaintiffs actual damages and finds that the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.

7. The court does not approve of omnibus motions which do not refer to any specific information. The answer to this motion is "it depends." It depends on who the witness is, when the witness should have been identified and if not identified, why not, the role of the witness, etc. Having no specific any particular witness or discovery request or statute which would apply, the court cannot review this motion in a vacuum. Therefore, the motion is premature and is denied without prejudice.

8. and 9. The court is unclear about these motions. There is mention that "the parties have already agreed that State Farm's liability to Plaintiffs will be heard and determined in the first phase of the trial..." The court has reviewed the court file and can find no stipulation and/or order concerning multiple phases of the trial or any stipulation or court order to bifurcate. The court needs to be a part of this process. The parties cannot determine these issues on their own.