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.

Personal Injury
Auto v. Auto
Underinsured Motorist Claim

Julia Wonn v. American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Co. and Does 1-50, inclusive

Published: Sep. 8, 2023 | Result Date: Mar. 7, 2023 | Filing Date: Dec. 6, 2022 |

Case number: 2:22-cv-02179-DAD-KJN Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Dale A. Drozd

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Peter O. Glaessner
(Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth LLP)

Lori Ann Sebransky
(Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth LLP)


Defendant

Hugh Douglas Galt
(Woolls, Peer, Dollinger & Scher APC)


Facts

On October 28, 2022, Julia Wonn filed suit against American Family Connect Property and Casualty Insurance Company.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff contended that she was a involved in a car accident in which the vehicle in which she was a passenger struck a parked vehicle; that as a result of this collision, she suffered serious injuries; that her medical bills stemming from the accident exceeded $259,000; and that the insurance policy held by the driver had a bodily injury limit of $15,000. The plaintiff further contended that at the time of the accident, she was living with her mother; that her mother had an automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant; that the policy included uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage; and that the bodily injury coverage limit under the policy was $250,000. The plaintiff contended when she submitted a claim to the defendant, however, the defendant denied coverage; the defendant advised her she did not qualify as an insured resident relative under the policy; and that she was not entitled to any benefits under the policy. The plaintiff asserted causes of action for declaratory relief; reformation of the contract; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and unfair business practices in violation of the Business and Professions Code.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability. Moreover, the defendant contended that the plaintiff was not covered under the policy because she had not been identified as a resident of her mother's household; that although the plaintiff was not covered under the policy, she could be covered under the Insurance Code without regard to her mother's policy, and it paid her $15,000, which it calculated to be the amount she was entitled to under the Code.

Result

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.


#141387

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

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