Dalton v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance

[1039]

Opinion

KAUFMAN, Acting P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from the grant of summary judgment in this action based on plaintiff’s insurer’s alleged bad faith in refusing a claim. We conclude there was no triable issue of fact for resolution by the trial court and will therefore affirm.

Facts

While she was single, plaintiff purchased an automobile which she registered in her name and obtained a comprehensive automobile insurance policy from defendant. Plaintiff alone is specified in the policy as the “named insured,” and is the only driver listed on the policy.

About eight months after she obtained the policy plaintiff married. Plaintiff and her husband (husband) lived in various motels, and about three weeks after they were married, the husband left with the automobile and never returned. In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleged the husband did not have her permission to take the car.

Plaintiff reported the automobile as stolen to defendant and the police, and later filed a claim with defendant. Defendant denied the claim. In a letter to plaintiffs former attorney defendant’s claims supervisor stated the claim was denied because plaintiff’s husband was a “named insured upon our policy and, therefore, cannot physically steal the vehicle,” and “[ojnce the marriage was consummated, the vehicle became community property and cannot, therefore, be subject to theft by either individual.”

1

Plaintiff’s automobile was later found in Colorado. The Colorado state police reported the location of the automobile to Security Pacific National Bank, plaintiffs lender, who brought the automobile to California where it was sold to satisfy the balance of plaintiffs loan.

In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleged defendant breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to honor plaintiff’s claim; defendant withheld payment with a conscious disregard of plaintiffs right to payment in violation of Civil Code section 3294; and defendant’s failure to pay plaintiff was a violation of Insurance Code section 790.03. Plaintiff sought general and punitive damages.

Defendant later moved for summary judgment, pointing out that under the policy a “named insured” is defined as “the person . . . named in the declarations and ... the spouse of such person ... if [a] resident of the same household.” Because the husband was a “resident of the same