Belcher v. CSAA Insurance Services CA1/4

Filed 4/5/21 Belcher v. CSAA Insurance Services CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

ANTHONY D. BELCHER, Plaintiff and Appellant, A158210 v. CSAA INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC18-01927) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Anthony D. Belcher, appearing in propria persona, appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendant CSAA Insurance Services, Inc. (CSAA) after the court sustained without leave to amend CSAA’s demurrer to Belcher’s second amended complaint. Plaintiff contends the court erred in holding that his complaint fails to allege a cause of action for interference with contractual relations or prospective economic advantage. We affirm. Background Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he is an “ ‘at will’ contract employee” at a limited liability company called Westech Environmental (Westech) that does environmental, health and safety work for various insurance clients, including CSAA. Plaintiff’s job is to provide independent, third-party regulatory compliance oversight of the environmental, health and safety aspects of remediation and restoration projects after a property casualty loss. His role includes ensuring worker safety and certifying re-occupancy

1

clearances for building owners. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that CSAA interfered with his contractual relations with Westech and Westech’s clients and interfered with his prospective economic advantage arising out of an insurance-related product he had developed. The complaint alleges that between 2006 and 2014, plaintiff worked on a number of projects for CSAA and there were “no significant issues” with the projects. In 2014, however, plaintiff began noticing problems with the CSAA projects and began hearing complaints about worker safety from employees of a contractor and subcontractor on the CSAA projects. In August 2014, plaintiff sent a “Notice of Concern” to the contractor, subcontractor and CSAA. The letter advises, “As a training provider for the State of California, I am required to report instances of violations I witness first hand to [the State of California, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (known as Cal/OSHA)]. In the event that I suspect such violations, I am urged to contact the company and provide a ‘Notice of Concern.’ ” The letter does not identify any specific workplace safety violations. Instead, it continues, “Our training courses cover employee safety as well as employer compliance for worker protection. These classes are open for discussion and conversations invariably shift to why some employers neither adhere to Cal/OSHA standards nor adequately protect their employees. On more than one instance your company’s name has come into the conversation. [¶] It should be noted that the State of California has regulations that differ from the rest of the country in that they are more stringent than Federal . . . requirements. Since this letter is a notice of concern, we are prohibited from any appearance of solicitation. Accordingly, we can only recommend that you consult with your safety manager and review your workplace programs. [¶] It is my most sincere hope that this letter sheds light on ways that will help develop and