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
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.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390