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 Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings

Velia Minjares v. Amguard Insurance Company, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Feb. 16, 2024 | Result Date: Feb. 21, 2023 | Filing Date: May 5, 2021 |

Case number: 5:21-cv-00798-JWH-SHK Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

John W. Holcomb


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Evan M. Selik
(McCathern LLP)

Christine C. Zaouk
(McCathern LLP)

Cody J. Shaver
(Shaver Legal APC)


Defendant

Kristin A. Ingulsrud
(Weston & Agness LLP)

Wynn I. Kaneshiro
(Weston & Agness LLP)

Richard C. Weston
(Weston & Agness LLP)


Facts

On February 14, 2020, Velia Minjares's property in Rialto was flooded from a clogged toilet and kitchen sink. She immediately hired Ricardo Plumbing who noted that the main line was backed up and cleared it that same day. Minjares then submitted a claim to AmGUARD Insurance Company and hired Reliance Property Damage Consultants as her representative to adjust the loss. Reliance provided AmGUARD with photos of the damage and a repair estimate of $64,973.30 along with the emergency service invoice of $8,962.11. AmGUARD also retained an independent claim adjuster, Eberl Claim Service to inspect the property. Eberl's report affirmed the cause and successful line clearance. The following month, AmGUARD issued Minjares a check for $5,000 as part of its final determination despite a disagreement over the amount with Minjares' adjuster. Minjares then filed a complaint in state court in February 2021, asserting, among others, breach of contract. Three months later, AmGUARD removed to USDC Central and in August 2022 filed a motion for summary judgment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant breached the insurance contract by failing to indemnify her for the covered losses to her property.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that there was no coverage under the policy because of the Water Damage Exclusion which excluded water damage resulting from backup through sewers or drains. If anything, plaintiff was only covered under a provision allowing for limited water backup coverage of $5000 which they paid.

Result

The court agreed with defendant and granted summary judgment in its favor.


#140959

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

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