R & R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania

10 Citing cases

  1. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Chief Dig. Advisors

    578 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (S.D. Cal. 2020)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that defendant insured had stated a plausible claim for breach of insurance contract based on insurer's failure to provide independent counsel

    "To establish breach of the implied covenant, the insured must show that: (1) benefits due under the policy were withheld, and (2) such withholding was unreasonable." O'Keefe v. Allstate Indem. Co. , 953 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1115 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange , 221 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1151, 271 Cal.Rptr. 246 (1990) ); see alsoR & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. , 610 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1230โ€“31 (S.D. Cal. 2009) ("Under California law, in order to prevail on a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff must establish that the Defendant's handling of the claim was unreasonable or without proper cause.") (citing Love , 221 Cal. App.3d at 1151, 271 Cal.Rptr. 246 ).

  2. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co. v. Tesoro Corp.

    930 F. Supp. 2d 653 (W.D. Tex. 2013)   Cited 19 times
    Finding no conflict where potential exception to rule under Texas law did not apply and state laws were otherwise identical

    In any event, the Court notes that the cases Tesoro Corporation cites in support of its argument that a parent company can recover damages for losses suffered by a subsidiary are inapposite. First, R & R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Company of State of Pennsylvania, 610 F.Supp.2d 1222 (S.D.Cal.2009) does not stand for the proposition, as Tesoro Corporation claims, that a parent corporation may sue for damages sustained solely by a subsidiary. (Doc. # 38 at 10.)

  3. Cherewick v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

    3:20-cv-00693-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2022)   Cited 24 times
    Explaining why objections that statements are irrelevant, lack personal knowledge, are speculative, or qualify as improper legal conclusions, are misplaced on a motion for summary judgment

    Thus, to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the denial of coverage context, which is sometimes referred to as a โ€œbad faith claim, โ€ โ€œthe plaintiff must show that: (1) benefits due under the policy were withheld; and (2) the reason for withholding benefits was unreasonable or without proper cause.โ€ Align Tech., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 957, 965 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Love v. Fire Ins. Exch., 271 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1151 (1990)) (internal quotations omitted); see also R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 610 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1230 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (Anello, J.); Major v. W. Home Ins. Co., 169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1209 (2009) (quoting Gruenberg, 9 Cal.3d at 573-74). This requires โ€œPlaintiff [to] establish that Defendant's actions both breached the contract and the actions, taken in bad faith, frustrated the actual benefits of the contract.โ€

  4. Cherewick v. State Farm Fire & Cas.

    Case No.: 3:20-cv-00693-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    To state a claim "for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the denial of coverage context, the plaintiff must show that: (1) benefits due under the policy were withheld; and (2) the reason for withholding benefits was unreasonable or without proper cause." Align Tech., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 957, 965 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting Love v. Fire Ins. Exch., 271 Cal. Rptr. 246, 255 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)) (internal quotations omitted); see also R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 610 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1230 (S.D. Cal. 2009). That is, "Plaintiff must establish that Defendant's actions both breached the contract and the actions, taken in bad faith, frustrated the actual benefits of the contract."

  5. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co.

    88 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding Starr's New York choice-of-law provision unenforceable because it was contrary to the "fundamental policy" of the insured's home state.

    To state a claim โ€œfor breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the denial of coverage context, the plaintiff must show that (1) benefits due under the policy were withheld, and (2) the reason for withholding benefits was unreasonable or without proper cause.โ€ Align Tech., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 673 F.Supp.2d 957, 965 (N.D.Cal.2009) (quoting Love, 221 Cal.App.3d at 1151, 271 Cal.Rptr. 246 ) (internal quotations omitted); see also R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 610 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1230 (S.D.Cal.2009). In other words, โ€œPlaintiff must establish that Defendant's actions both breached the contract and the actions, taken in bad faith, frustrated the actual benefits of the contract.โ€

  6. Gelfand v. N. Am. Capacity Ins. Co.

    No. C-12-4819 EMC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, since the punitive damages issue is "somewhat dependent " on the issue of bad faith and NAC has not contested the factual sufficiency of Reata's bad faith claim, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that NAC did not act maliciously, oppressively, or fraudulently. See e.g., R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 610 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1234 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (denying defendant insurer's motion summary judgment on plaintiff's punitive damages claim: "Given that material issues of fact exist as to whether Defendant acted in bad faith, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Defendant did not act with malice, oppression, or fraud in its handling of Plaintiff's claim."). Accordingly, NAC's motion for summary judgment on the Reata's punitive damage claim is denied.

  7. Maraldo v. Life Ins. Co. of the Southwest

    Case No.: 11-CV-4972-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    A UCL claim predicated on California Insurance Code ยง790.03, a provision of Unfair Insurance Practices Act, would be barred by Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, 46 Cal.3d 287 (1988). See R & R Sails v. Insurance Company of State of Pennsylvania, 610 F.Supp.2d 1222 (S.D. Cal. 2009). Plaintiffs here do not plead such a basis for their claim. --------

  8. Riverbank Holding Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.

    NO. CIV. 2:11-2681 WBS GGH (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    '" Spinks, 171 Cal. App. 4th at 1053 (quoting Hannon Eng'g, Inc. v. Reim, 126 Cal. App. 3d 415, 431 (2d Dist. 1981)). While a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to punitive damages, see Silberq v. Cal. Life Ins. Co., 11 Cal. 3d 452, 462-63 (1974), it is difficult to imagine a factual scenario where evidence could support a finding of bad faith on behalf of an insurance company and yet foreclose the possibility of punitive damages, even where the plaintiff will have to meet the "clear and convincing" burden at trial, see, e.g., R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 610 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1234 (S.D. Cal. 2009) ("Given that material issues of fact exist as to whether Defendant acted in bad faith, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Defendant did not act with malice, oppression, or fraud in its handling of Plaintiff's claim." (citing Nasiri v. Allstate Indem. Co., 41 F. App'x 76, 79 (9th Cir. 2002))); Metro. Bus. Mqmt., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CV 05-8306 CAS, 2009 WL 691192, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2009) (same); Back v. Allstate Ins. Co., Inc., No. S045 LKK/CMK, 2005 WL 1683885, at *10 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2005) ("Because . . . the court cannot resolve the bad faith question, summary judgment as to punitive damages must also be denied.").

  9. Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection Co., Inc.

    272 F.R.D. 517 (S.D. Cal. 2011)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that Rule 23(b)'s predominance requirement was not met where "an individual inquiry into the handling of each class member's claim would be necessary to determine whether a breach occurred"

    Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, p. 24, fn. 76. Defendant contends Plaintiff's UCL claim based on an alleged violation of Insurance Code ยง 790.03 is barred because the California Unfair Insurance Practices Act does not provide for a private cause of action, citing R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Penn., 610 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1232 (S.D.Cal.2009). Opposition to Motion for Class Certification, p. 24.

  10. Willbanks v. Progressive Choice Insurance Company

    1:10-CV-1299 AWI SKO (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2010)   1 Legal Analyses

    Following Textron, numerous Federal Courts have refused to allow Section 17200 claims that were based on a Defendant's alleged violations of the UIPA. See e.g., R R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 610 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1233 (S.D.Cal. 2009); Doyle v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 2008 WL 5070055, at *7-8 (E.D.Cal. 2008); AHO Enterprises, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4830708, at 5 (N.D.Cal. 2008). In this action Plaintiff's Section 17200 claim is based on Defendant's alleged violations of the UIPA.