Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:54:30 (UTC).

PETER MICHAEL BOESEN JR ET AL VS CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSUR

Case Summary

On 07/05/2017 PETER MICHAEL BOESEN JR filed a Contract - Insurance lawsuit against CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSUR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7564

  • Filing Date:

    07/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Insurance

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

BOESEN PETER MICHAEL

BOESEN STACY YATO

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

ADMIRAL & REDONDO PLUMBING

Cross Defendants

KELLY TRACY [DOE 2]

ADMIRAL & REDONDO PLUMBING [DOE 3]

C & C PARTNERS DESIGN/BUILD FIRM INC.

KELLY ROBERT [DOE 1]

ADMIRAL & REDONDO PLUMBING INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ERICKSON NEIL C. ESQ.

LEAR EDWARD O. ESQ.

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP

OCAMPO MARISOL

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

CASTRONOVO TOD MICHAEL

Cross Defendant Attorneys

ZECH JEFFREY MICHAEL

JAFFE JUDIANNE ESQ.

AU PATRICK

ORLAND JAMES JOHN

AU PATRICK ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

6/12/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

6/12/2019: Ex Parte Application

Order

6/27/2019: Order

Minute Order

6/27/2019: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2/20/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

NOTICE OF RULING RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND MOTION TO STAY TO APRIL 17, 2018

3/9/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND MOTION TO STAY TO APRIL 17, 2018

Minute Order

3/21/2018: Minute Order

AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLANT [FICTITIOUS/INCORRECT NAME]

5/10/2018: AMENDMENT TO CROSS-COMPLANT [FICTITIOUS/INCORRECT NAME]

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/31/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

6/4/2018: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Minute Order

6/11/2018: Minute Order

ORDER AND STIPULATION FOR LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/28/2018: ORDER AND STIPULATION FOR LEAVE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

Cross-Complaint

10/16/2018: Cross-Complaint

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

12/18/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Notice

3/7/2019: Notice

Motion for Summary Adjudication

5/6/2019: Motion for Summary Adjudication

Separate Statement

5/6/2019: Separate Statement

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/18/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

69 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/12/2020
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED TRIAL DATES, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIALLY SET A HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT'S MSA; DECLARATIONS; MEMO OF P&A'S) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL RELATED TRIAL DATES, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIALLY SET A HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT'S MSA; DECLARATIONS; MEMO OF P&A'S); Filed by California Automobile Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • DocketOrder (ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE, AND ALL TRIAL RELATED DATES); Filed by California Automobile Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STAT...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by California Automobile Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
139 More Docket Entries
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by California Automobile Insurance Company (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketCROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketSummons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT 2) TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Peter Michael Boesen (Plaintiff); Stacy Yato Boesen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC667564    Hearing Date: March 23, 2021    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Brett Zebrowski and

Palm Realty Boutique, Inc.

OPPOSITION: None Submitted

Defendants Brett Zebrowski and Palm Realty Boutique, Inc. (collectively in this motion “Defendants”) request that the Court approve a $15,000 settlement on the single cause of action, conspiracy to defraud, related to concealment of a water leak during the purchase of a property.

Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt is entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors. (CCP § 877.6(a)(1).)

The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof. (CCP § 877.6(d).) The objecting party may carry its burden by demonstrating that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the factors set forth below. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498-501. Six factors guide the good faith determination:

(1) A rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability;

(2) The amount paid in settlement;

(3) The allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;

(4) A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than it would if it were found liable after a trial;

(5) The financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and

(6) The existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. (Ibid.)

GRANTED

Here, considering all the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds that the settlement is in good faith.

First, the Court considers the rough approximation of Plaintiffs total recovery and Defendants’ liability. The settlement is proportionate to Defendants’ liability because an arbitrator previously ruled in favor of the sellers. In June 2017, Plaintiffs initiated arbitration against the sellers, Defendants’ client, for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The arbitrator found in favor of the sellers. (Decl. DeMason, ¶ 3.) The arbitrator’s findings make it difficult for Plaintiffs to prevail on their conspiracy claim against Defendants.

Second, the Court considers the $15,000 paid in the settlement.

Third, the Court considers the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs. The settlement proceeds will be allocated jointly to Plaintiffs.

Fourth, the Court recognizes that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial. Here, Defendants are paying less than if they were found liable at trial for Plaintiffs’ damages.

Fifth, the Court considers the financial conditions and insurance limits of settling defendants. The settlement is being paid by Defendants rather than an insurance company.

Sixth, the Court considers whether there is fraud, collusion, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants. The Court finds that there is no evidence of fraud or collusion between the settlors.

Based on all the factors, the Court finds Defendants’ settlement with Plaintiffs to have been made in good faith and motion is GRANTED.

Case Number: BC667564    Hearing Date: September 23, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: 1) Defendants California Automobile Insurance Company and, Ganis Insurance Services, Inc.

2) Defendant Paley Stone & Tile Forensic

OPPOSITION: Plaintiffs Peter Michael Boesen Jr. and

Stacy Yato Boesen

Plaintiffs Peter Michael Boesen Jr. and Stacy Yato Boesen (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against defendants California Automobile Insurance Company (“Cal Auto”), Ganis Insurance Services, Inc., (“Ganis”), and Paley Stone & Tile Forensic (“Paley”). Plaintiffs allege they acquired a Cal Auto insurance policy from Ganis, that they suffered two water leaks, and that Cal Auto engaged Paley to provide a lowball estimate for water loss damage.

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action:

3) Conspiracy to Defraud (April 2016);

4) Interference (April 2016);

7) Conspiracy to Defraud (December 2016);

8) Interference (December 2016);

9) Fraud in the Inducement of the Insurance Contract.

On June 10, 2020, Defendants Cal Auto and Ganis filed a demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Third, Seventh, and Ninth causes of action. On June 19, 2020, Defendant Paley filed a demurrer to the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Eight causes of action.

Cal Auto’s and Ganis’ Demurrer

3rd and 7th Causes of Action, Conspiracy to Defraud (April 2016 & December 2016): OVERRULED

Plaintiffs allege that on April 25, 2016, a water pipe burst under the slab in the kitchen floor of their property and that it costs in excess of $400,000 to restore the property. (FAC, ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs also allege that on December 16, 2016, a water pipe burst under the floor in the entryway hall wine closet of the property and that it costs in excess of $200,000 to restore the property. (FAC, ¶ 40.)

Defendant argues that conspiracy is not a cause of action and instead is a doctrine that imposes liability on persons who share with immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design. Cal Auto states that what Plaintiffs are actually alleging is a fraud claim, which they have failed to allege with the required specificity. “The elements of fraud are (a) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) scienter or knowledge of its falsity; (c) intent to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Ctr. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged their fraud in the performance claim. Plaintiffs are correct that less specificity is required when “it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy.” Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corporation (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 217.

Plaintiffs allege that Christine Douglas, an agent and representative of Cal Auto, with the consent of her supervisors, represented to them that Cal Auto would conduct complete investigations into their loss claims but concealed that Cal Auto did not intend to conduct such investigations and instead engaged Paley, who was biased to write false estimates. (FAC, ¶¶ 74, 75, 121.) Plaintiffs allege that they relied on the representations because otherwise they would have immediately filed suit on both of their water loss claims. (FAC, ¶ 78, 124.)

9th Cause of Action, Fraudulent Inducement: OVERRULED

The Court notes that the ninth cause of action is alleged against both Cal Auto and Ganis.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the fraudulent inducement claim. Here, Plaintiffs allege that when they procured insurance Mary Ganis of Ganis Insurance Services, Inc., an insurance agent and representative of Cal Auto, concealed from them that Cal Auto had in place protocols designed to avoid payment of first party claims, especially water loss claims. (FAC, ¶ 8, 46.) Plaintiffs relied on the Ganis’ misrepresentations by procuring coverage through Ganis and Cal Auto. (FAC, ¶ 146.)

Conclusion: Defendants Cal Auto’s and Ganis’ Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Paley’s Demurrer

Analysis: OVERRULED

Paley argues that Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege the third, fourth, seventh, and eight causes of action because Paley is an agent of Cal Auto. The agent’s privilege/immunity rule protects an agent from individual liability for acts taken on behalf of his principal. Huynh v. Vu (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 1183, 1194. Paley states that despite Plaintiffs not explicitly stating that Paley is an agent of Cal Auto, the FAC implicitly alleges this. Plaintiffs allege that Paley had less than an arms length relationship with Cal Auto, that Paley was dispatched constantly by Cal Auto as part of an institutional practice to submit lowball estimates. (FAC, ¶ 21.)

Conversely, Plaintiffs argue that whether Paley is an agent of Cal Auto is a question of fact (2) the fact that Paley and Cal Auto have a business relationship does not establish an agent-principal relationship, and (3) even if Paley is an agent of Cal Auto, Paley can still be held liable for fraud.

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the issue of whether Paley is an agent of Cal Auto is not resolvable at the demurrer stage of the proceedings. “An agent is one who represents another, called the principal, in dealings with third persons. Such representation is called agency.” (Civ. Code, § 2295.) “The distinguishing features of an agency ... are its representative character and its derivative authority. [Citation.] ... ‘Agency is the relation that results from the act of one person, called the principal, who authorizes another, called the agent, to conduct one or more transactions with one or more third persons and to exercise a degree of discretion in effecting the purpose of the principal.’ ” Gipson v. Davis Realty Co. (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 190, 205-206.

It is undisputed that an agency relationship is not explicitly alleged. Here, the facts alleged about the Paley-Cal Auto relationship are insufficient to establish that Paley was Cal Auto’s agent. “The existence of an agency is a factual question within the province of the trier of fact whose determination may not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” L. Byron Culver & Associates v. Jaoudi Industrial &Trading Corp. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 300, 305.

Conclusion: Defendant Paley’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Case Number: BC667564    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendants C & C Partners Design/Build Firm, Inc.; Admiral & Redondo Plumbing

OPPOSITION: Defendant Paley Stone & Tile Forensic

Plaintiffs Peter Michael Boesen Jr. And Stacy Yato Boesen (“Plaintiffs” or the “Boesens”) purchased a Redondo Beach property from Bob and Tracy Kelly (the “Kellys”). The Kellys used C&C Partners Design/Build Firm, Inc., (“C&C”) as their contractors. C&C in turn used Cross-Defendant Admiral & Redondo Plumbing (“Admiral”) as a subcontractor for the plumbing work on the property. Plaintiffs claimed there were non-disclosures by the Kellys about defects with the properties’ plumbing and filed the action against several defendants; C&C and Admiral have agreed to settle the matter with the Boesens in exchange for C&C and Admiral each paying $50,000.

On August 21, 2020, Defendant Paley Stone & Tile Forensic (“Paley”) has filed an opposition to C&C’s and Admiral’s motion for determination of good faith settlement.

Analysis: GRANTED

Considering all the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds that the settlement is in good faith.

First, the Court considers the rough approximation of Plaintiffs total recovery and the parties’ liability. Plaintiffs’ expert has estimated that the cost to repair the subject property is approximately $400,000. The moving parties will pay 25% of the cost of repair. Paley argues that it was only added to the action in March 2020 and does not have the pleadings or discovery to determine if the settlement was made in good faith. Admiral’s counsel states that they provided their prior pleadings and discovery to Paley. (Decl. Au, ¶ 4.)

Second, the Court considers the amount paid in the settlement. The settlement is $100,000. Insurers for C&C agreed to pay $50,000 and insurers for Admiral agreed to pay $50,000.

Third, the Court considers the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs. The settlement proceeds will be allocated jointly to the Plaintiffs.

Fourth, the Court recognizes that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial. Here, the moving parties are paying less than if they were found liable at trial for Plaintiffs’ damages.

Fifth, the Court considers the financial conditions and insurance limits of settling defendants. The settlement is being paid by the moving parties’ insurers.

Sixth, the Court considers whether there is fraud, collusion, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants. The Court finds that there is no evidence of fraud or collusion between the settlors.

Based on all the factors, C&C’s and Admiral’s motion is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ZECH JEFFREY MICHAEL

Latest cases represented by Lawyer AU PATRICK

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ORLAND JAMES J.