Bittner v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co.

Full title: JOEL BITTNER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Jan 27, 2006

CASE NO. 05cv1921 BTM(JMA) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2006)

Opinion

CASE NO. 05cv1921 BTM(JMA).

January 27, 2006

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BARRY MOSKOWITZ, District Judge

Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company ("Defendant" or "Hartford") has filed a motion for summary judgment. Bittner has not filed an opposition to the motion. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joe Bittner has sued Hartford for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Bittner, the President of Summit Communications, Inc. ("Summit"), claims that he was an insured under a business liability insurance policy issued by Hartford. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) He claims that business equipment was stolen from the Summit office and that this loss was covered by the policy. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) This action arises out of Hartford's alleged failure to fully compensate Bittner for the loss of the business equipment.

II. DISCUSSION

Hartford argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Bittner lacks standing to bring this action. The Court agrees.

Bittner's claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are premised on Bittner being an insured under the insurance policy. The Complaint alleges that Bittner was an insured. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) However, the policy names Summit, the corporation, as the insured. (Exhs. 6-7 to Eller Decl.) Bitner is not named as an insured or an additional insured. (Exhs. 3-4 to Eller Decl.)

Bittner is President of the insured corporation. However, the fact that a corporation is designated as the insured "does not, as a matter of law include individuals other than the corporation, such as employees, officers, or stockholders."Nelson v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 259 Cal. App. 2d 248, 255 (1968). Bitner has not come forward with any evidence that he was a named insured under the policy or fit within an expressly defined category of those for whose benefit the policy was created.

Because Bittner is not an insured under the policy, Bittner lacks standing to bring a claim for breach of contract. See Republic Indemnity Co. of America v. Schofield, 47 Cal. App. 4th 220, 226 (1996) (holding that plaintiffs who were employees of the insured corporation were not insured themselves under the terms of the policy and consequently had no standing to maintain a suit for breach of contract or bad faith against the insurer). Similarly, Bittner lacks standing to bring a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See Seretti v. Superior Nat'l Ins. Co., 71 Cal. App. 4th 920, 929 (1999) (holding that shareholders were not a party to the insurance contract and could not pursue an action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the insurer).

Although Summit would have standing to seek recovery against Hartford under the insurance policy, it appears that Summit's corporate powers, rights, and privileges have been suspended. (Exh. 5 to Green Decl.) Summit has not made any request to be substituted in as plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court grants Hartford's motion for summary judgment.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Hartford's motion for summary judgment [8-1] is GRANTED. Final judgment shall be entered in favor of Hartford Casualty Insurance Company and against Joel Bittner. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.