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
Breach of Contract
Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Christie Vargas v. Infinity Insurance Company, et al.

Published: Jan. 7, 2022 | Result Date: Dec. 14, 2021 | Filing Date: Oct. 29, 2020 |

Case number: 20STCV41542 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Barbara M. Scheper

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gregory B. Byberg
(The Law Office of Gregory B. Byberg)


Defendant

Theona T. Zhordania
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)


Facts

In June 2018, Christie Vargas purchased a 2017 Dodge Charger. She also purchased an insurance policy for the vehicle issued by Infinity Insurance Company. The insurance policy had exceptions to coverage that included losses caused when driven by a household member who was a regular operator of the vehicle and not listed on the policy and losses caused when the vehicle is being used in the commission of crime. On September 15, 2018, Vargas loaned the vehicle to her boyfriend, Jose Arenas, to drive to work. That same day, Arenas was involved in a traffic accident while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Vargas submitted a claim to Infinity for the damage caused in the accident, and Infinity denied the claim. Vargas filed suit against Infinity.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Defendant breached its contract with her by denying her claim; and that Defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that Arenas was a regular operator of the vehicle not listed on the policy, and therefore, the damage was not covered by the policy; and that Arenas was driving under the influence at the time of the accident, which fell under the definition of using the vehicle during the commission of a crime, and therefore, the damage was not covered by the policy.

Result

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.


#138252

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

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