Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication
Case No.: VCU321509 Date: June 9, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman Motion: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion for summary judgment.
Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (FIE) moves for summary judgment on the complaint of plaintiffs Mariano Duran and Aguilera Oregon. In the alternative, FIE moves for summary adjudication on four issues. The court need not list, nor discuss, the four issues presented for summary adjudication because it finds FIE establishes entitlement to summary judgment.
Plaintiffs sue FIE for breach of their homeowner's insurance policy based on FIE's alleged denial of full coverage "and/or" its failure to make all contractually required payments and provide all contractually required "benefits." Based on the same allegations, plaintiffs assert both a breach of contract and tortious bad faith claim against FIE (first and second causes of action, respectively). Plaintiffs allege entitlement to punitive damages on their second bad faith claim as well.
Plaintiffs allege that they suffered a covered loss to their house when, "on or about 04-13-2024," "the roof of the home on the Property was damaged due to wind and rain, which allowed rainwater to seep through the roof and into the interior of the home causing further damage to the Property." Water damage is covered under plaintiffs' policy when entry of the water to the covered structure (i.e., the home) is caused by wind. Water damage incident to construction defects, latent defects, wear and tear, and lack of maintenance and the failure to make repairs, however, is not covered under the policy.
FIE moves for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs do not have, and cannot reasonably obtain, evidence that they suffered a covered loss as alleged in their complaint (due to water intrusion caused by wind). FIE additionally presents evidence intended to affirmatively show that plaintiffs did not suffer a covered loss based on water intrusion caused by wind.
The court finds that FIE makes a prima facie showing that plaintiffs do not have, and cannot reasonably obtain, evidence to establish that plaintiffs suffered a covered loss, as they allege, due to water damage resulting from entry of water to their home caused by wind. FIE makes this showing based on plaintiffs' discovery responses. In discovery, FIE asked plaintiffs for all facts, persons with knowledge, and documents supporting their claim for breach of contract and for production of identified documents. Plaintiffs produced inspection reports, photographs, estimates, and invoices from their consultants and FIE's consultant, but none of this material contained evidence of a covered loss or a covered occurrence as alleged in plaintiffs' complaint (i.e., water damage incident to intrusion caused by wind).
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?”
FIE also makes a prima facie showing that the cause of the water damage plaintiffs allegedly suffered was not caused by wind, but, rather, resulted from improper installation of the roof tile materials and/or significant roof wear and tear--neither of which are covered under plaintiffs' policy. FIE makes this prima facie showing based on its own consultant's report, detailing that inspection of the damaged premises revealed plaintiffs' roof showed significant signs of wear and tear, no signs of wind damage, and areas of zippering on the roof attributable to improper installation of the roof tile materials.
Plaintiffs have not, to date, filed an opposition. FIE highlighted this, specifically, in a May 28, 2026 filed "Reply and Notice." Plaintiffs failure to file an opposition, in the instant circumstances, is fatal to their action. FIE has met its initial burden on summary judgment that it did not breach the terms of plaintiffs' policy by denying plaintiffs' coverage; and plaintiffs, by failing to file any opposition, necessarily fail to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (See Aguilar v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493] ["[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact."].)
The court additionally notes that plaintiffs' failure to have filed a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by FIE to be undisputed may be deemed, itself, "a sufficient ground, in the court's discretion, for granting [FIE's] motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 437c, subd. (b)(3).)
Because FIE establishes entitlement to summary judgment on plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, FIE is also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' bad faith claim, since, as pled in plaintiffs' complaint, plaintiff's bad faith claim is predicated on their breach of contract claim. (See also, Griffin Dewatering Corp. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 172, 194-196 [97 Cal.Rptr.3d 568] [first step of analysis in bad faith cases is whether there was a breach unreasonable as to warrant contract damages; if the coverage decision is reasonable, the insurer has no liability for the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.].)
Accordingly, FIE's motion must be, and is, granted as to the whole of the complaint. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Discover Bank vs. Aldama, Misty