Sarkisyan v. Newport Ins. Co.

1 Citing case

  1. Munoz v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

    Case No. 19-cv-03768-HSG (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2019)   Cited 1 times
    In Munoz, the issue was whether the insurance company was “obligated by the terms of its Policy to pay [the] undisputed [sales tax] amount to leased insureds just as it pays that amount to owned- or financed-vehicle insureds.” 2019 WL 6465297, at *2 (citation omitted).

    Instead, they argue that the Policy covers sales tax for leased vehicles just as for owned vehicles, and covers the full amount of state regulatory fees instead of a prorated sum. If the Court were to grant GEICO's motion, the appraisers would be asked to answer coverage questions, a task not part of their limited role. See also Sarkisyan v. Newport Ins. Co., No. B230612, 2011 WL 5995990, at *3 (Cal. App. Nov. 28, 2011) (unpublished) (denying a motion to compel appraisal and holding the amount of loss was not in dispute because "the meaning of 'actual cash value' is a legal determination that cannot be made by the appraiser."). GEICO argues that the Court should follow a factually similar case, McGowen v. First Acceptance Ins. Co., Inc., No. 8:19-cv-1101-T-24CPT, Dkt. No. 30 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2019), in which the court granted defendant insurer's motion to compel appraisal.