Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 24NNCV04005, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV04005, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

On September 4, 2024, plaintiff Gohar Martirosian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“Defendant”) asserting claims for: (1) breach of contract and (2) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing (“bad faith”). Plaintiff, a homeowner, alleges that on February 12, 2024, the roof of her home was damaged by winds. (Compl., ¶ 9.) As a result of the damaged roof, rainwater entered the interior of her home and caused significant water damage to her property. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Defendant allegedly refused to pay the entirety of the policy benefits owed under her home insurance policy after determining that the interior damage was not covered under the policy and not caused by the roof. (Compl., ¶¶ 14-15.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant failed to provide any information as to why the claim was denied and intentionally chose not to consider evidence she provided. (Compl., ¶¶ 19, 21.)

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)

Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s bad faith claim on the grounds that the Complaint is devoid of factual allegations demonstrating any supposed bad faith. A claim for bad faith “involves something beyond breach of the contractual duty itself” and requires unfair dealing rather than mistaken judgment. (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395.) The failure to investigate can constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as can the unreasonable delay in the payment of benefits. (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 723; Brehm v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1237.)

Here, Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant failed to thoroughly investigate and adjust her claim and therefore unjustly and unreasonably delayed in paying her claim. (Compl., ¶ 19.) But, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff also more specifically alleges that Defendant “completed an inspection” on or about March 5, 2024, and that the inspection caused Defendant to determine that coverage was only available for part of the claimed damages. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Plaintiff does not describe how the inspection completed by Defendant was inadequate. Plaintiff also does not describe any of the evidence which Defendant allegedly chose not to consider. The conclusory statement that Defendant failed to thoroughly investigate her claim is insufficient to state a claim for bad faith (Compl., ¶¶ 19, 21.)

As for Defendant’s motion to strike, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and related allegations. “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) An agent's or employee's acts in the course and scope of employment are attributed to the employer for tort liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. But the fact that an employee acted with “fraud, malice or oppression” in the course and scope of employment is not enough by itself to render the employer liable for punitive damages. (Merlo v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co. (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 5, 18.) Rather, where a plaintiff seeks to hold a corporate employer liable for punitive damages, the plaintiff must allege with specificity (and eventually prove by clear and convincing evidence) that an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation had requisite advance knowledge and conscious disregard of that employee’s propensity to perform the type of act committed against the plaintiff, or that the act was authorized or subsequently ratified. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b); Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) Conclusory allegations without sufficient facts are inadequate. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any specific conduct by any individual, let alone an officer, director, or managing agent, that would subject Defendant to punitive damages liability. Accordingly, the motion to strike is GRANTED.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.