Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 21STCV47047, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

1. An Order granting summary judgment in Defendant’s favor as to the entire FAC;

2. An Order that Defendant did not breach the policy under the second cause of action because Plaintiff made material misrepresentations in the presentation of his claim;

3. An Order that Defendant did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing alleged under Plaintiff’s third cause of action because there was no underlying breach of contract as Plaintiff made material misrepresentations in the presentation of his claim;

4. An Order that Defendant did not violation Business & Professions Code section 17200 alleged under Plaintiff’s third cause of action;

5. An Order that Plaintiff is not entitled to declaratory relief under his first cause of action as there was no underlying breach by Defendant; and

1. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication is DENIED, in part and GRANTED, in part.

On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff Bart Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant California Fair Plan Association and Debora Stefans (“Defendants.”)

The FAC was filed on March 21, 2022. The FAC alleged three causes of action (1) Declaratory Judgment, (2) Breach of Contract, and (3) Unfair Business Practices and Bad Faith. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff had a contract with Defendant California Fair Plan Association, whereby Defendant would pay the insured for any losses and repairs from direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff alleges that after a truck collision damaged his house, Defendant denied settlement of the claims and denied coverage.

On December 21, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication. On February 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendant filed a Reply on March 8, 2024.[1]

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial.¿(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843). In analyzing such motions, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”¿(Hinesley¿v.¿Oakshade¿Town Center¿(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294).¿ Thus, summary judgment or summary adjudication is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.¿(CCP § 437c(c);¿Villa v.¿McFarren¿(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741).¿

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the party¿moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element.¿(Scalf¿v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc.¿(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520). Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”¿(Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389). A motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be denied where the moving party's evidence does not prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition or where the opposition is weak.¿(See¿Leyva v. Superior Court¿(1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475;¿Salesguevara¿v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387.¿¿¿

Once the¿moving¿party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party¿to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto.¿(CCP § 437c(o)(2)).¿ When¿a¿party¿cannot¿establish an essential element or defense, a court must grant a motion for summary adjudication.¿(CCP § 437c(o)(1)-(2)).¿

Defendant contends that it did not breach the subject policy because Plaintiff made material misrepresentations in the presentation of his claim.[2] Specifically, that Plaintiff mislead Defendant as to who was driving the U-Haul truck that damaged his property and to whether or not he had a tenant. Plaintiff argues there is a disputed material fact as to who was driving the U-Haul.

To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to establish (1) a contract between the parties, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damages to the plaintiff from the breach. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)¿“As damages are an element of a breach of contract cause of action [citation], a plaintiff cannot obtain judgment on a breach of contract cause of action in an amount of damages to be determined later.” (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 241 (Paramount Petroleum).)

Here, Defendant did not meet its initial burden indicating no triable issues of material fact exist. Indeed, Defendant’s own evidence indicates a material factual dispute exists. Namely, whether there was a tenant at Plaintiff’s property. Defendant indicates that Plaintiff told them that the incident was caused by tenant’s backing a U-Haul truck into the subject property’s car port. (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SSUMF) No. 13.) However, Defendant’s evidence indicates that the alleged tenant may not have been a tenant. (Compendium of Exhibits, Exhibit 14, Deposition of Plaintiff 16:18-17:23.) Put differently, there is a dispute as to whether Plaintiff meant “tenant” in the sense that it excluded coverage from the policy or whether Defendant’s adjuster wrote “tenant” after interpreting Plaintiff’s report of some woman storing furniture on his property.

Accordingly, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as to the first issue concerning breach of contract due to material misrepresentation.

For the same reasons articulated above, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as there is a triable issue of fact concerning Plaintiff’s alleged material misrepresentation.

Summary adjudication must completely dispose of the cause of action, defense, damages claim or duty issue to which it is directed. CCP § 437c(f)(1). The court declines to address Defendant’s UCL argument at this time because Plaintiff’s third cause of action concerns both Unfair Business Practices and Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and, as noted above, there is a triable issue of fact concerning the alleged material misrepresentation.

For the same reasons articulated above, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication as there is a triable issue of fact concerning Plaintiff’s alleged material misrepresentation.

Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law. First, without tort damages, punitive damages cannot be awarded. Here, Defendant argues that because Plaintiff cannot recover any damages for bad faith, punitive damages are inapplicable. Second, Defendant argues that no evidence exists establishing punitive damages as Plaintiff cannot prove malice, oppression, or fraud.

“If the plaintiff is going to prevail on a punitive damages claim, he or she can only do so by establishing malice, oppression or fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, any evidence submitted in response to a motion for summary adjudication must necessarily meet that standard.” (Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1121.) Under Civil Code § 3294, ““Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.”

The Court finds that while there are triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant breached the contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Defendant has met their burden that no evidence exists that would allow for punitive damages. While Defendant may have breached the contract by denying the claim, Plaintiff has failed to raise a material issue of disputed fact that Defendant acted with fraud, oppression or malice. The evidence as stated does not rise to the level required for punitive damages.

Thus, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Punitive Damages is GRANTED.

1.Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication is DENIED except as to the Punitive Damages which is GRANTED.

[1]The objections filed by Defendant on March 8, 2024, challenging Plaintiff’s declaration are overruled.

[2] Defendant contends that, pursuant to the subject policy, it did not breach because there is no coverage for “concealment or fraud.” (Natale Dec. ¶ 10, Exhibit 1.)