Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara No. 1267382, Denise de Bellefeuille, Judge
Rydan Todd Shon, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bollington, Stilz, Curry & Bernard, Christopher K. Opfell for Defendant and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
Plaintiff Rydan Shon appeals a judgment dismissing his tort/personal injury action against defendant 21st Century Insurance Company (21st Century) following the sustaining of a demurrer to his complaint without leave to amend. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer because Shon's complaint did not state a cause of action against 21st Century. We affirm.
FACTS
Shon claimed that he was involved in an automobile accident with a car driven by a party insured by 21st Century. He obtained a Judicial Council complaint form for personal injury and property damage based on motor vehicle negligence. (Jud. Council form PLD-P1-001, rev. Jan. 1, 2007.) He named 21st Century as the sole defendant. He did not state facts alleging that he was insured by, or had any contractual relationship with, 21st Century. He did not name the driver or owner of the vehicle insured by 21st Century and he did not state any facts about the auto accident in the complaint.
21st Century demurred on various grounds, including that he lacked standing to sue. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and ordered the action dismissed.
DISCUSSION
I. Sustaining the Demurrer
Shon contends the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer to his complaint. We disagree. "On appeal from a judgment entered after the sustaining of a demurrer the order of the trial court... must be affirmed... if the demurrer is well taken as to any of the grounds stated therein." (Bernstein v. Piller (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 441, 443.) A demurrer is properly sustained where "[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action" against the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)
Shon utilized a Judicial Council complaint form. "The Judicial Council pleading forms have simplified the art of pleading, and have made the task of drafting much easier. Nevertheless, in some cases more is required than merely placing an 'X' in a box." (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484.) Pleadings are liberally construed. (Id. at p. 1485.) But "we must not so liberally construe the allegations of the complaint so as to deny the defendant adequate notice to defend the case." (Ibid.)
Here 21st Century demurred on the ground that Shon lacked standing to sue. Shon's complaint did not state facts showing a basis for liability against the insurer. He did not allege that he was insured by 21st Century. He did not state that he had any preexisting relationship with the company, he did not describe what it did, or failed to do, and he did not show how he sustained damages by its conduct. He simply listed 21st Century as the defendant and claimed damages. Because of the absence of any facts to support a theory of liability, the demurrer was properly sustained because the complaint did not state a cause of action. (Krupnick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 185, 190.)
On appeal, Shon is apparently contending that he stated a cause of action simply because 21st Century insured the driver of the vehicle that allegedly collided with him. But he did not sue that driver in this action. He only sued the insurance company. Shon has no direct cause of action against 21st Century based on this theory. (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 304.)
"'Generally, an insurer may not be joined as a party-defendant in the underlying action against the insured by the injured third party. The fact that an insurer has agreed to indemnify the insured for any judgment rendered in the action does not make the insurer a proper party. Liability insurance is not a contract for the benefit of the injured party so as to allow it to sue the insurer directly.'" (Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 193, 200.) A plaintiff suing an insurance company must state facts showing standing to sue. (Krupnick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 190.) Shon has not done so.
Shon checked the box on the pleading form indicating that he was seeking punitive damages. But he did not allege any facts in the complaint, nor has he cited to any in the record, to show any factual basis for such damages. (G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 28-29.) He did not describe 21st Century's conduct or state facts from which an inference of malice could be inferred. In ruling on a demurrer, "[d]oubt in the complaint may be resolved against plaintiff and facts not alleged are presumed not to exist." (C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.)
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. "When the demurrer has been sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. If there is no such possibility, an abuse of discretion is not shown and we affirm the trial court." (Jones v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1717, 1722.)
Shon has not shown an abuse of discretion. He did not include a reporter's transcript of the demurrer hearing, nor did he obtain a settled statement. Consequently, we do not know what representations or admissions he may have made in the trial court. On this incomplete record, we must presume that he was unable to establish grounds for leave to amend at the hearing. (Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532-1533.)
Shon filed a motion for reconsideration, which he labeled as a motion "for new trial." The trial court denied the motion. In his moving papers, Shon did not state any new facts or describe how he could amend the complaint. He did not indicate that there were any new causes of action that he was intending to allege. From this, the trial court could reasonably infer that granting any leave to amend would not change the result. In his brief on appeal, he has also failed to show how he could amend the complaint to state a cause of action against 21st Century.
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded in favor of 21st Century.
We concur: YEGAN, J., COFFEE, J.