Demurrer to complaint
# Case Name Tentative
50. Hamid Defendants Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Rokian as Michigan, and Farmers Insurance Group’s demurrer to Trustee of complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend as to the Rokian the seventh cause of action for negligence, and otherwise Family Trust OVERRULED. v. Foremost Insurance Complaint in its entirety as alleged against Farmers. Farmers Company demurs to the complaint in its entirety on the grounds that Grand “Farmers Insurance Group” is “merely ‘service name’ for a Rapids, group of insurance companies but is not a legal entity,” as Michigan “explained in Bell v.
Farmers Ins. Exchange (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805, 808 [Bell]....” (Dem. P&As at p. 6.) 2026- 01554524 This argument fails because it ignores the allegations of the complaint. The complaint alleges “Farmers Insurance Group ... is a business entity engaged in the marketing, underwriting, and claims administration of insurance policies in California.” (Compl. ¶ 3.) These are allegations of fact that the court must accept as true on demurrer. (See Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)
Farmers’ reliance on Bell, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 808 to establish a contrary fact here is misplaced. Case law establishes legal rules and precedents, not the truth of facts in a new dispute. (See Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 284 [“ ‘a decision is not authority for what is said in the opinion but only for the points actually involved and actually decided’ ”].) Further, Bell says nothing about whether “Farmers Insurance Group of Companies,” as “a group of affiliated insurance companies,” constitutes a legal entity or not; Farmers’ legal existence was not at issue in that case.
It therefore does not support defendant’s position. (Styne v. Stevens (2001) 26 Cal.4th 42, 57-58 [“An opinion is not authority for a point not raised, considered, or resolved therein.”].)
Sixth cause of action, violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
# Case Name Tentative
fn. 10.) “Depending on proof of the nature and extent of the insurer’s claims handling practices, the trial court [will] determine whether injunctive relief [is] appropriate” once the litigation reaches that point, and the failure formulate a specific injunction in the complaint does not render the claim susceptible to demurrer. (See id. at p. 381, fn. 10.) “ ‘[A] demurrer tests the sufficiency of the factual allegations of the complaint rather than the relief suggested in the prayer[.]’ ” (Ibid.)
Seventh cause of action, negligence. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for negligence. (See Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 618 [negligence elements]; see also Benavides v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249-1253 (Benavides).) The alleged conduct at issue under this claim—i.e., “failing to conduct a reasonable investigation and ... unreasonably denying defense and coverage” within a month of receiving the claim, thereby causing plaintiff financial/economic harm (Compl. ¶¶ 15-17, 30-31, 61-64)—only gives rise to a tort claim for bad faith breach, not negligence. (See Benavides, at pp. 1249-1253.)
Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.
51. Mendoza v. Plaintiff Juan Mendoza’s motion for leave to file first amended Garden complaint is GRANTED. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. Grove (a)(1); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, Unified 761.) School District Plaintiff is ORDERED to separately file and serve the proposed first amended complaint (Johnson Decl. at Ex. 1) within five 2023- court days. The first amended complaint must be filed as a 01312531 separate document to ensure it is properly indexed in the record.
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.
52. Bales v. Defendants John and Susan Belenardo’s motion for attorney Belenardo fees pursuant to Civil Code section 5975 is GRANTED in part.
2021- Civil Code section 5975, part of the Davis-Stirling Common 01201005 Interest Development Act, provides that in an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be