From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 4, 2016
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01281 EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01281 EPG

08-04-2016

PATRICK E. PATTERSON and KRIS LYNN-PATTERSON, individuals, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation; and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants.


Removed from Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 14CECG01988

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment executed by all parties to this action (Doc. 40), which stated as follows:

WHEREAS, the Court's Order on June 9, 2016, granted summary judgment in favor of American Economy Insurance Company ("AEIC") as to both of Plaintiffs' causes of action. (Doc. 37, page 1 :22-28.). With respect to Plaintiffs' First Cause of action for breach of contract the Court concluded:

In conclusion, based on the of the policy, the context of a loss, the dictionary definitions, the reasonable expectations of the parties, and the California courts' understanding of the word occurrence in similar situations, this Court finds that Plaintiffs losses are not covered by the policy because, under the undisputed facts, they constitute a single "occurrence." (Doc. 37, 12:10-13.)

WHEREAS, as to the Second Cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing the Court concluded:

Under California law, if a loss is not covered and no benefits are due, there can be no tort liability for breach of the implied covenant, even if the investigation was negligent. Benavides v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 136 Cal. App. 4th 1241, 1250-51 ... Thus, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of defendant for this claim as well, based on its ruling regarding coverage discussed above. (Doc. 37, 12:15-25.)

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant American Economy Insurance Company based on the Court's Order dated June 9, 2016 (Doc. 37), and against Plaintiffs Patrick E. Patterson and Kris Lynn-Patterson. Defendant is awarded recovery of allowable costs.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4 , 2016

/s/ _________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Patterson v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 4, 2016
Case No.: 1:14-cv-01281 EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016)
Case details for

Patterson v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK E. PATTERSON and KRIS LYNN-PATTERSON, individuals, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 4, 2016

Citations

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01281 EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016)