Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20CHCV00137, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00137    Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 4-24-23

Case #20CHCV00137

Trial Date: 6-26-23 c/f 5-15-23

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Henry Martinez

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Following a January 11, 2017 “hit and run” car collision, Plaintiff Henry Martinez submitted an uninsured motorist claim with his insurer, Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company. The date of the submitted claim remains unarticulated in the complaint. According to Plaintiff, after a 20 month investigation, the claim was neither accepted nor denied.

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Tortious Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. (The caption of the complaint also lists an Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200 cause of action, but no such cause of action appears in the body of the complaint.) Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases on September 6, 2020 with BS175060. The BS175060 case was dismissed on March 13, 2020. Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases in the BS175060 on August 3, 2021.

On August 27, 2020, the court ordered the parties to arbitration upon the motion of Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company, and stayed the action. On April 5, 2022, the stay of the action was lifted and the case restored to the civil active list.

Defendant Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company answered on April 7, 2022. On May 17, 2022, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company filed its amended answer.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant, Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company moves for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication, on the action of Plaintiff Henry Martinez for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant contends Plaintiff cannot state claims for breach of contract and bad faith based on an April 9, 2021, arbitration award and payment. The motion is unopposed. Plaintiff in reply reiterates the basis of the unopposed motion.

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) 

Uninsured insurance claims are subject to arbitration. “The policy or an endorsement added thereto shall provide that the determination as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled, the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured and the insurer or, in the event of disagreement, by arbitration.” (Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).) Arbitration occurred, an award was rendered, and paid. [Declarations of Andrea Warren and Jessie Garcia and Compendium of Evidence.] Plaintiff remains precluded from further litigating/re-litigating the claim. (Rudd v. California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 948, 955; see Rangel v. Interinsurance Exchange (1992) 4 Cal.4th 1, 16–17; United Services Automobile Assn. v. Superior Court (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 79, 83–84.) The breach of contract cause of action therefore fails due to payment on the terms of the policy. (Maxwell v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1449.) The court finds no triable issues of material fact remain on the breach of contract cause of action.

The circumstances leading to the arbitration and payment therefore also leads to a finding of no triable issues of material fact on the bad faith claim. (Rappaport-Scott v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 831, 839; Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Ass'n v. Associated Intern. Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 335, 347.)

The court grants the unopposed motion for summary judgment in favor of Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company. Moving defendant is ordered to submit a judgment to the court. All future motions and the trial date are vacated.

Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company to provide notice.