Rodriguez v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. CA5

Filed 6/2/21 Rodriguez v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

HENRY RODRIGUEZ, F078262 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 14C0283) v.

PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE OPINION COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S. Burns, Judge. Romaine Lokhandwala Law Group, William A. Romaine and Zishan Lokhandwala for Plaintiff and Appellant. Shoecraft Burton, Burton Kelly, Michelle L. Burton and Rachael K. Kelley for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Appellant Henry Rodriguez (Rodriguez) sued respondent Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (Pacific Specialty) for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Rodriguez appeals from the summary judgment granted in favor of Pacific Specialty. Finding the record on appeal inadequate, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We recite only those facts either admitted by both parties or for which we find factual support in the limited record before us. Rodriguez owned a home in Corcoran, California, for which he obtained property and casualty insurance from Pacific Specialty, commencing in 2012. Over the course of Rodriguez’s occupancy of the home, structural damage occurred to it, notably fractures of floor joists and ceiling rafters. In late 2012, Rodriguez tendered a claim for property damage to Pacific Specialty, seeking policy benefits to repair the damage. On two separate occasions, Pacific Specialty dispatched claims adjusters to investigate Rodriguez’s claims. Pacific Specialty concluded that the damage to the home that Rodriguez was complaining of was entirely attributable to non-covered causes. Rodriguez then retained counsel, who in turn retained the services of one William Sario, to reanalyze the damage to the home and its cause. Sario concluded that the damage to Rodriguez’s home was caused by the cumulative seismic effects of heavy freight trains passing approximately 200 feet from the home, in combination with a heavy stucco façade that had been added to the home well after its initial construction, in the course of a remodeling. Pacific Specialty still denied the claim, concluding that Rodriguez’s alleged cause of damage fell under exceptions to coverage in Rodriguez’s policy. On October 31, 2014, Rodriguez sued Pacific Specialty for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on Pacific Specialty’s denial of Rodriguez’s claim. Following discovery, Pacific Specialty filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition, Rodriguez, inter alia, offered a declaration from