This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Bad Faith
Breach of Contract/Fraud

Levan Utudzhyan v. Wawanesa General Insurance Co.

Published: May 27, 2006 | Result Date: Dec. 5, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC324828 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Rick W. Manthei


Defendant

Kenneth N. Greenfield
(The Greenfield Law Firm)

Ernest L. Bell
(Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo)


Experts

Defendant

Boyd A. Veenstra
(technical)

Facts

Around October 2002, defendant Wawanesa General Insurance Co. issued a personal automobile policy of insurance to plaintiff Levan Utudzhyan. Under the policy, coverage would not be provided to any person who knowingly concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance in connection with the insurance. The policy further provided that when a person seeks coverage, he must cooperate during the investigation of the claim.

In June 2003, plaintiff reported the theft of a 2002 Cadillac Escalade. Defendant's adjuster processed plaintiff's claim. Information was gathered from plaintiff regarding the vehicle's purchase and facts surrounding the claim. The matter was then referred to defendant's Special Investigation Unit, which then assigned the investigation to Santoni Skrifvars & Damerall Investigations.

In July, Rick Voller, a Santoni investigator, took a statement from plaintiff. The facts provided by plaintiff in the statement were inconsistent with facts plaintiff provided in a prior interview with defendant's adjuster.

In November, plaintiff's Examination Under Oath (EUO) was taken. The statements provided by plaintiff during the EUO were inconsistent with those made in plaintiff's statement to Voller and in the interview with the adjuster. Further, during the EUO, plaintiff stated that the vehicle had a theft recovery system. However, plaintiff refused to authorize activation of the system in order to track the location of the vehicle.

As a result of plaintiff's inconsistent statements and his refusal to cooperate with the investigation, the claim was denied in April 2004.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff sued, claiming breach of contract, bad faith and fraud.

Result

Defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted.


#110838

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390