Case Name: State Farm General Insurance Company v. Borges Security Systems, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 1-14-CV-263774

This negligence action arises from a January 4th, 2012 incident in which the home of Robert and Janice Scott (the “Scotts”) suffered water damage. (See Complaint, p. 4.) Plaintiff State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”), the Scotts’ insurer, alleges that an employee of defendants Borges Security Systems, Inc., Rufino Silveira Borges III, Rufino Silveira Borges IV, and Mary Lena Borges (collectively, “Defendants”) negligently stepped on and broke two high-pressure water sprinkler lines while working in the Scotts’ attic. (Id.) State Farm paid the Scotts for their resulting damages and is subrogated to the Scotts’ rights against the Defendants. (Id.)

State Farm filed this action on April 14, 2014, asserting a single claim for negligence against Defendants. On December 4, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that a limitation of liability clause in their contract with the Scotts limits State Farm’s damages in this action to $250.

Defendants’ motion fails on procedural grounds. “A defendant seeking summary judgment must show that at least one element of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Alex R. Thomas & Co. v. Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 66, 72; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Here, Defendants do not attempt to negate any element of State Farm’s claim for negligence or establish any “complete” defense. Rather, they contend that a limitation of liability clause caps State Farm’s damages at $250. Since Defendants acknowledge that they may be liable for up to $250 in damages, it would be inappropriate to award them summary judgment.

Defendants have not moved for summary adjudication. Even if the Court were inclined to treat their motion as one for summary adjudication, the applicability of the limitation of liability clause is not appropriately resolved by such a motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1) [“A party may move for summary adjudication … if that party contends that [a] cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, or that there is no merit to an affirmative defense …, or that there is no merit to a claim for [punitive] damages, … or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.].) While Defendants plead the limitation of liability provision as an affirmative defense, summary adjudication of an affirmative defense is appropriate only where a party contends that there is no merit to the defense. Here, Defendants seek a ruling that the limitation of liability provision does apply.

In light of the above, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.