United National Insurance Company v. Kuan Yih Wuo, Kathy Wuo, Steve Tsu-Pong Wuo and Does 1 through 50, inclusive
Published: Dec. 4, 2020 | Result Date: Nov. 18, 2020 | Filing Date: Jan. 15, 2020 |Case number: 8:20-cv-00086-JVS (DFMx) Summary Judgment – $237,500
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Limor Lehavi
(Mokri, Vanis & Jones)
Defendant
Rosa M. Kwong
(Law Office of Rosa Kwong)
Facts
Kuan Yih Wuo aka Kathy Wuo and Steve Tsu-Pong Wuo had a general liability policy issued by United National Insurance Company. The policy covered several mobile home parks owned by the Wuos and was renewed twice annually with no changes to its terms and conditions. After United National tendered the defense and indemnity for a case brought against the Wuos by their tenants, it requested they pay their $187,500 deductible for settling the claims. After the Wuos refused, National Insurance defended them in two subsequent tenant actions and requested the deductibles from those proceedings as well. United National later sued the Wuos and sought summary judgment for the claims.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the provision in the policy referring to a deductible "per claim" for damages was unambiguous. The deductible clearly applied to all damages sustained by each individual, therefore each claim in the 75 tenant suit and subsequent group tenant suits carried the $2,500 deductible. As a result, plaintiff sought declaratory relief from the court that it was entitled to reimbursement from defendants and that it was only obligated to pay on defendants' behalf for damages in excess of $2,500.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that the provision in their insurance policy requiring a deductible "per claim" for damages was ambiguous. Plaintiff erroneously interpreted it to impose deductible on each claim even if brought in a class action or combined suit against defendants. Based on plaintiff's interpretation the provision was ambiguous and should be construed against plaintiff as the drafter.
Result
The court found that the language used in the policy was unambiguous and that the definitions within the policy further clarified instead of confused its meaning. Finding no evidence of special usage or terms, the court interpreted the policy by its plain meaning and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the amount of $237,500.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390