Doe v. Cal. Capital Insurance Co. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Feb 17, 2026 No. B343169Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under Insurance Code section 11580 because they did not establish insurance coverage and failed to plead the substance of the relevant policy terms. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or for declaratory relief.

Issues

Whether a judgment creditor can recover from an insurer under Insurance Code section 11580 without pleading the substance of the insurance policy or establishing coverage.
Whether a third-party claimant can state a cause of action for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against an insurer.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Standing alone, the judgments against Cuevas did not entitle Jane Does to recover from CCIC under section 11580 because those judgments were not dispositive of the coverage element.”

“Jane Does did not attach the insurance policy and, in fact, opposed CCIC’s request for judicial notice of the policy. Nor did Jane Does properly allege the substance of the relevant coverage terms.”

“Given the wholly derivative nature of the declaratory relief claims, the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer as to those claims.”

Filed 2/17/26 Doe v. Cal. Capital Insurance Co. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

JANE DOE 1 et al., 2d Crim. No. B343169 (Super. Ct. No. 23STCV28248) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County)

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 3 (Jane Does) appeal after the trial court sustained California Capital Insurance Company’s (CCIC) demurrer without leave to amend. Jane Does had asserted causes of action based on default judgments obtained in their favor against Gonzalo Cuevas, whom Jane Does alleged CCIC insured. Jane Does contend that “[i]n granting defendants’ [sic] demurrer, and dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, the court erroneously failed to abide by controlling legal precedent.” We will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2020, Jane Does filed a complaint against Cuevas and his employer, Gardner Management. Jane Does alleged Cuevas sexually abused them. The complaint included causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and sexual battery. In October 2022, the court entered default judgments against Cuevas based on negligence causes of action. The court awarded $1,000,000 to Jane Doe 1 and $500,000 each to Jane Does 2 and 3. In November 2023, Jane Does filed a complaint against CCIC. Each Jane Doe alleged three causes of action: (1) a direct action against insurer (CCIC) by insured’s judgment creditor (Jane Doe 1, 2, and 3) to recover the amount of final judgment against the insured (Cuevas) under Insurance Code section 11580;1 (2) tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) declaratory relief. As to the section 11580 causes of action, Jane Does alleged that by failing both to intervene in the default judgment proceedings and to move to set aside the default judgments, CCIC is bound by those judgments. Regarding the tortious breach causes of action, Jane Does alleged CCIC’s “failure to pay the [judgments] was unreasonable and in bad faith.” Finally, the declaratory relief causes of action were based on CCIC’s not having paid the judgments and denial of their obligation to do so. The trial court sustained CCIC’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case.

Doe v. Cal. Capital Insurance Co. CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CODY, J.

BALTODANO, J.

AI Brief