Myles v. Farmers Group CA1/3

Filed 7/31/14 Myles v. Farmers Group CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TOMMIE L. MYLES, Plaintiff and Appellant, A139522 v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., et al., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC 12-02784) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Tommie L. Myles has filed two lawsuits against the insurer of a driver who caused damage to his vehicle. This appeal arises out of the second lawsuit. On appeal, Myles claims that res judicata principles do not preclude his second lawsuit and that his direct action against the negligent party’s insurance company is not barred by Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 (Moradi-Shalal). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Accident The underlying action arises out of an automobile accident that damaged a vehicle owned by Myles. Sandra Sanabria allegedly crashed her vehicle into Myles’s car while it was parked at his home. Sanabria was insured by defendant Coast National Insurance Company (Coast National), which is affiliated with defendant Farmers Group, Inc. (Farmers). Coast National assigned 100 percent of the fault for the accident to its insured, Sanabria.

1

Myles alleges that Coast National and Farmers mishandled the claim for damage to his vehicle by declaring the car to be a “[t]otal [l]oss,[s]alvage” on the basis of an appraisal that that did not account for improvements to the car or use the correct vehicle for purposes of a comparative market evaluation. According to Myles, Coast National and Farmers refused to pay the estimated cost of repairing his vehicle and instead made an inadequate settlement offer based upon the purportedly inaccurate designation of his vehicle as a total loss. Myles alleges that the cost to repair his vehicle was nearly $4,700 and that Coast National and Farmers only offered a little over $2,000 in settlement of the claim. Myles filed two lawsuits arising out of the accident. The second lawsuit is the subject of this appeal. First Lawsuit Myles filed the first action in April 2011. As set forth in the second amended complaint in that action, Myles sued Farmers and Coast National for violations of Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, which are found in title 10 of the California Code of Regulations. Myles alleged that Farmers and Coast National failed to settle his claim in a timely and fair manner, devalued his vehicle by comparing it to a different model, falsely labeled his vehicle a total loss, and committed other violations of the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations. He also asserted causes of action for fraud based upon allegations that Farmers and Coast National deliberately misrepresented the value of his vehicle and falsely labeled it a total loss. Myles sought damages of over $3.5 million. In the first action, Coast National filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint on the ground that the Supreme Court’s decision in Moradi-Shalal, supra, 46 Cal.3d 287, precludes a private right of action by a third-party claimant against an insurer for unfair claims handling practices. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment in favor of Coast National in August 2012.