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 Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Anaid Petrosyan, an individual dba Red Carpet Floral Design v. AMCO Insurance Company, an Iowa corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: Mar. 8, 2014 | Result Date: Aug. 2, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:12-cv-06876-SJO-CW Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Sarah R. Wolk

Jessica N. Trotter

Zachary J. Levine
(Wolk & Levine, LLP)


Defendant

Marc S. Hines
(Hines Hampton LLP)

Shanna E. Burkholder
(Cannon & Nelms PC)

Christine M. Emanuelson
(Hines Hampton LLP)

Michelle L. Carder

Larry J.H. Liu

Nicole M. Hampton


Facts

Anaid Petrosyan dba Red Carpet Floral Design sued her insurer, AMCO Insurance Co., in connection with a robbery that occurred at her store, and resulting in losses.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In 2009, Petrosyan purchased insurance policies to cover categories of items she sold at her store. The larger, more expensive items were covered by a separate policy written by Jeweler's Mutual, while AMCO covered the smaller items. AMCO issued a $725,000 policy for Petrosyan's business. On Oct. 9, 2011, Petrosyan was robbed in her store. Petrosyan then filed a claim with both Jeweler's Mutual and AMCO. Jeweler's Mutual immediately began dealing with Petrosyan to resolve her claim. In contrast, Petrosyan did not hear from AMCO until Nov. 1. AMCO then sent its adjuster who was rude and confrontational. While Petrosyan's claims with Jeweler's Mutual had been paid in full and without any hassle, Petrosyan had received no updates about her claim with AMCO.

Petrosyan asserted causes of action for constructive breach of insurance contract; tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud; declaratory relief; and unfair business practices.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
AMCO filed a motion to dismiss Petrosyan's claims, claiming that Petrosyan's loss either did not occur at the premises described in the policy or involved covered property at a described premises. AMCO also contended that Petrosyan made material misrepresentations to AMCO in its application for insurance and during the claims process. AMCO also contended that its handling of the matter was reasonable under the circumstances. Defendant argued that Petrosyan's claims should be dismissed in its entirety.

Damages

Petrosyan's complaint was silent as to the damages sought. However, according to AMCO, Petrosyan made an $867,682 claim under the policy.

Result

U.S. Court Judge S. James Otero entered judgment in favor of AMCO for Petrosyan's claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, construction fraud, declaratory relief, and unfair business practices.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Aug. 9, 2012.


#95957

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

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