Artius Dermatology Associates PC et al vs Cura Dermatology et al

Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 07/31/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion: Protective Order; Motion: Compel

other words, courts may not use the unfair competition law to condemn actions the Legislature permits." (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 184.)

Here, Harding's UCL claim is based on American's alleged violation of the fair settlement practices in title 10, section 2695.10 of the Code of Regulations (Section 2695.10). (Compl., P.P. 50-53.) Harding alleges that American failed to "make a determination" of his claim against the Surety Bond as required under Section 2695.10. (Compl., P.P. 53-60.) As alleged, "[American's] repeated non-compliance with Section 2695.10 has deprived Harding, a homeowner and consumer, of his right to a swift resolution of Defendants' violations of contractor's state license law, thereby undermining the public policy behind license bonds." (Compl., P. 61.)

The settlement claims practices in Section 2695.10 were promulgated to implement Insurance Code section 790.03 and related code sections "[t]o delineate certain minimum standards for the settlement of claims." (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, Sec.Sec. 2695.1, subd. (a)(1), 2695.10.) "Neither section 790.03 nor section 790.09 was intended to create a private civil cause of action against an insurer ...." (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 304.) "While insurance companies are subject to California laws generally applicable to other businesses, including laws governing unfair business practices ... parties cannot plead around Moradi-Shalal 's holding by merely relabeling their cause of action as one for unfair competition." (Zhang v.

Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 378.) "[W]hile insurers are subject to administrative sanctions for violating statutory prohibitions against unfair and deceptive claims settlement practices ... statutory violations do not give rise to a private right of action for tort damages." (Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28, 50-51.)

Harding did not file any opposition or response to this demurrer. American filed and served a notice of non-opposition.

Based on the arguments and legal citations by American, the demurrer to the fourth cause of action for violation of the UCL has merit. There is no private right of action under Section 2695.10 against American for violation of the UCL or in tort. It does not appear that this cause of action can be amended to state a claim against American and no request for leave to amend was made by Harding. For all these reasons, the court will sustain the demurer by American to the fourth cause of action for violation of the UCL without leave to amend.

Tentative Ruling: Stephen Harding vs Thomas Lutz Construction et al Tentative Ruling: Stephen Harding vs Thomas Lutz Construction et al