Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV29143, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV29143    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 45

1718 Vine St. LLC v. atlantic casuAlty insurance company

motion to stRike to plaintiff’s complaint

Date of Hearing:        January 28, 2025                   Trial Date:       None set.  

Department:              W                                            Case No.:        24STCV29143

Moving Party:            Defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company

Responding Party:     Plaintiff 1718 Vine Street LLC

Meet and Confer:      Irani Decl. ¶ 2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff 1718 Vine Street LLC (“Plaintiff”) owns real property located at 105-109 South Indiana Street, Los Angeles, California. On or about November 11, 2022, flooding allegedly occurred at the property. Plaintiff submitted the claim to defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company, and on January 31, 2023, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company denied the claim, allegedly falsely concluding that the water damage was the result of a sewer line backup and excluding it.

On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the complaint alleging: 1) Breach of Contract; and 2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company moves to strike the punitive damages claim in the complaint.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company’s motion to strike is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief. (Clauson v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  California Civil Code section 3294 authorizes punitive damages upon a showing of malice, fraud, or oppression.  Malice is defined as either “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.”  (Civ. Code, § 3294(c)(1).)  “Despicable conduct is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.”  (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 306, 331.)  Fraud under California Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (c)(3) “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.”  California Civil Code section 3294(2) defines oppression as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.”  Punitive damages thus require more than the mere commission of a tort.  (See Taylor v. Super. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95.)  Specific facts must be pled in support of punitive damages.  (Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392.)  A “conclusory characterization of [a] defendant’s conduct as intentional, wilful and fraudulent [is] [a] patently insufficient statement of oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 865.) Facts must be pled to show that a defendant “act[ed] with the intent to vex, injure or annoy, or with a conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.”  (Silberg v. California Life Ins. Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 452, 462.) 

ANALYSIS

The Court grants the motion. Plaintiff’s opposition indicates that it seeks punitive damages based on paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 16. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim for punitive damages and that Plaintiff pleaded the mere commission of tort. Further, Plaintiff makes conclusory characterizations of Defendant’s acts and omissions as fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. 

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to strike punitive damages with 20 days leave to amend.