2013-00141413-CL-IC

Ami Chand vs. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding:  Motion for Summary Judgment

Filed By: Bowden, Gina M.

Defendants Farmers Insurance Co. (“FIC”) and Fire Insurance Exchange (“FIE”)
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment is unopposed and is
GRANTED.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice (“Def.’s RJN”), which attaches various
court filings and orders from this lawsuit.  (Def.’s RJN, Exhs. A-O.)  The RJN is
unopposed and GRANTED.  However, in taking judicial notice of these documents, the
Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents.  (See
Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590 (judicial notice
of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true); Steed v.
Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

Allegations

The issues raised by a motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment are
framed by the pleadings.  (Dromy v. Lukovsky (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 278, 282;
Lennar Northeast Partners v. Buice (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1582.)

The causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint, which arises out of a denied property
damage claim on Plaintiff’s homeowner’s insurance policy, are for Breach of Contract  (First Cause of Action), Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing (Second Cause of Action), Declaratory Relief (Third Cause of Action), and
Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 (Fourth Cause of Action).  Each
Cause of Action is alleged as against both Defendants.

Discussion

Defendants move for summary judgment as to all causes of action.  On November 25,
2014, this Court granted moving party defendants’ unopposed motion to deem
requests for admission (“RFAs”) admitted against Plaintiff.  On January 28, 2014, the
Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order deeming the RFAs
admitted.

Defendants contend that the contents of the admitted RFAs “wholly negate” each
cause of action in Plaintiff’s pleading.  The Court agrees that the admitted RFAs suffice
to meet Defendants’ initial burden on summary judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)
(2) (describing moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment).)

Defendants have met their initial burden with respect to the breach of contract and
good faith and fair dealing causes of action.  The essential elements in an action for
breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or
excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting harm to
the plaintiff.   (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222
Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388.)  Somewhat relatedly, with respect to an action for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, an “insured cannot maintain a claim
for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing absent a
covered loss.”  (Benavides v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th
1241, 1250.)  Here, Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted that FIE did not breach the
policy, that that FIC is not Plaintiff’s insurer, that Plaintiff did not sustain any damages
as a result of the acts or omissions of FIE or FIC, that Plaintiff’s claim was not covered
by his policy, and that wear and tear or improper roof maintenance/installation allowed
rain water to enter the residence and cause damage, which is a loss expressly
excluded under Plaintiff’s alleged insurance policy.  (Defs.’ Undisputed Material Fact
(“UF”) Nos. 1-4.)

Defendants have met their initial burden with respect to the declaratory relief cause of
action as it is alleged in this particular case.  The issues raised by a motion for
summary adjudication or summary judgment are framed by the pleadings.  (Dromy,
supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at 282.)  Here, Plaintiff’s pleading seeks a judicial
determination in connection with Plaintiff’s insurance policy, specifically, as to whether
“any portion of the plaintiff’s claim on his insurance policy was excluded under any
terms of the insurance policy.”  (Compl. at 6.)  However, Plaintiff is deemed to have
admitted that FIE did not breach the insurance policy, that FIC is not Plaintiff’s insurer,
and that the alleged injury was not covered by Plaintiff’s insurance policy.  (UF Nos. 1-
4.)  As a result, and as framed in Plaintiff’s pleading, Defendants have met their initial
burden and shown that there is nothing for the Court to declare, shifting the burden to
Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)  Plaintiff has not argued otherwise or            identified evidence showing a triable issue of material fact as to this cause of action, so
he has not met his burden.  (Id.)

Defendants have also met their initial burden with respect to the unfair competition law
cause of action (“UCL claim”).  To support a UCL claim, a plaintiff must produce
evidence of an economic injury resulting from the alleged unfair business practice.  (
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 337.)  Here, however, Plaintiff
is deemed to have admitted that he did not suffer any damages as the result of any act
or omission of either defendant (UF No. 3), and that his claim was not covered by his
policy (UF Nos. 1, 4).

In sum, moving parties have made a showing sufficient to meet their initial burden of
proof on summary judgment and to shift the burden to Plaintiff to demonstrate the
existence of a triable issue of material fact.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25
Cal.4th 826, 849.) As no evidence has been submitted in opposition to the motion,
Plaintiff has not shown that any disputed issues of material fact remain for
determination at trial.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) Defendants are therefore
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The prevailing parties are directed to prepare a formal order complying with Code of
Civil Procedure § 437c(g) and California Rule of Court 3.1312