Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. B005755,B005755 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Steven Lawrence REID, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. |
Knapp, Petersen & Clarke and Peter J. Senuty and Ronald W. Hopkins, Universal City, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiff Steven Lawrence Reid (plaintiff and/or Reid) appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant/respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). Plaintiff Reid, a permissive user of an automobile insured by State Farm, filed a complaint alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by State Farm for allowing destruction of an automobile which was involved in an accident while he was driving, thereby disenabling him from proving up allegations against other defendants. We affirm.
On July 31, 1980, at approximately 10 p.m., plaintiff Reid was involved in a one-car accident when the 1978 Honda Accord automobile he was driving struck the point of a guardrail at the Laurel Canyon off ramp of the Ventura Freeway. The car was a total loss and Plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries.
On July 13, 1981, Plaintiff filed a complaint containing four causes of action for strict products liability and negligence. The named defendants were certain manufacturers (Honda Manufacturing Company; American Honda Motor Company), the distributor and seller (Colonial Buick, Inc.) On June 3, 1982, Plaintiff filed a first amendment to his second amended complaint naming State Farm as a Doe defendant and added two additional causes of action as against State Farm; namely, a fifth cause of action alleging breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a sixth cause of action alleging willful and intentional destruction of evidence (the Honda automobile) by State Farm which disenabled him proof as against the named defendants in the first four causes of action. (The fifth and sixth causes of action directed at State Farm are the subject of this appeal).
and repairer (Colonial Body Shop, Inc.; Bill Robertson & Sons, Inc.) of the 1978 Honda Accord automobile involved in the accident. (The first four causes of action do not seek relief against State Farm and the aforementioned codefendants are not parties to this appeal)
On September 21, 1982, State Farm filed its answer which included a general denial and twelve separate affirmative defenses.
On December 14, 1983, State Farm filed "Notice of motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, for an order specifying issues without substantial controversy; memorandum of points and authorities; declarations of State Farm claim representatives Connie Rolls, Ben Matalon and Lee Hennen; Exhibits "A" through "E"."
On January 27, 1984, Plaintiff filed his response to State Farm's motion for summary judgment along with a memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration by Robert A. Goldstein, plaintiff's attorney.
On March 9, 1984, the superior court granted defendant State Farm's motion for a summary judgment and the judgment was signed by the trial judge and entered on April 11, 1984.
On April 25, 1984, plaintiff timely filed his notice of appeal.
State Farm's papers in support of its motion for summary judgment included the declarations, under penalty of perjury, of three State Farm claims representatives (Connie Rolls (Rolls), 1 Lee Hennen (Hennen), 2 and Ben Matalon (Matalon)), 3 who In addition to the foregoing declarations by the three claims representatives of State Farm (Rolls, Hennen and Matalon), its moving papers point to pertinent portions of the transcripts of depositions of plaintiff Reid 4 and State Farm's named insured Galloway. 5
processed the claims of State Farm's named insured, Tara Galloway (Galloway), and her permissive user Reid, plaintiff herein. The moving papers also attached exhibits consisting of copies of documentation showing full settlement of all property damage claims by the named insured Galloway; transfer of the certificate of ownership of the [173 Cal.App.3d 565] damaged 1978 Honda Accord to State Farm; the California Highway Patrol (CHP) collision report; and the policy of insurance issued by State Farm.
In accordance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b), State Farm included a proposed "Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts." This statement essentially capsulizes the facts set forth in the declarations of State Farm's claims representatives Rolls, Hennen and Matalon and the deposition testimony of Galloway and plaintiff Reid.
Papers filed by plaintiff Reid, in opposition to State Farm's motion for summary judgment in addition to memorandum of points and authorities, contained only one declaration under penalty of perjury, that by Robert A. Goldstein, 6 one of the attorneys of record for plaintiff.
In plaintiff Reid's "Response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts," he essentially either conceded they were undisputed, admitted such testimony was made, or merely stated that he had no independent knowledge on which to dispute or verify such facts. (See Keniston v. American Nat. Ins. Co. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 803, 107 Cal.Rptr. 583.)
The aim of the summary judgment procedure is to discover, through the media of affidavits, depositions, admissions, etc., whether the parties possess evidence requiring the weighing procedures of a trial. (See Sheffield v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 583, 611, 192 Cal.Rptr. 870.) Here, plaintiff Reid had ample time to complete discovery and presented no evidence to contradict the undisputed facts proposed by State Farm. The following undisputed material facts are extracted and summarized in chronological order from State Farm's moving papers (see fns. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, supra ):
July 31, 1980 Plaintiff Reid, while driving a 1978 Honda Accord with permission by owner State Farm's insured Galloway, struck the point of a guardrail at the Laurel Canyon off ramp of the Ventura Freeway. Reid and passenger Tiller were injured and the vehicle was a total loss.
August 6, 1980 Claims Representative Rolls of State Farm received assignment to investigate potential claims arising out of the accident and promptly began investigation.
August 7, 1980 Claims representative Rolls inspected the vehicle and determined it to be a total loss.
August 8, 1980 Rolls of State Farm settled the property damage claim of insured Galloway as a total loss. Galloway transferred her full title and executed an ownership release to State Farm on the vehicle. Galloway made no mention of her suspicions concerning possible vehicle defects.
August 9, 1980 Rolls of State Farm interviewed passenger Tiller concerning his personal injury claim against Reid and Galloway. No mention of possible mechanical defect was made during this interview.
August 26, 1980 The CHP report of accident received by Rolls of State Farm indicated that the accident was due to a violation of Vehicle Code section 22107 by Reid and also indicated that inattention of Reid was a cause of the accident. The CHP report contained the conclusion that Reid overshot the freeway off ramp, and that he caused the accident by making an unsafe turn. The report stated no alcohol was involved and that no mechanical defects were apparent. Rolls concluded that the accident was 100 percent Reid's fault.
September, 1980 (approx.) Plaintiff Reid was made aware of Galloway's total loss settlement and that the car was at a wrecking yard.
September 5, 1980 (approx.) State Farm sold the wrecked car to Elite Auto Body.
October 17 or 21, 1980 Claims Representative Hennen of State Farm settled passenger Tiller's personal injury claim against Reid and Galloway.
October 10 or 11, 1980 (approx.) Elite Auto Body cut up the car for parts.
July 24, 1981 Plaintiff Reid and Galloway presented Reid's medical bills to Hennen of State Farm who issued a policy limit draft for $5,000. Neither Reid nor Galloway made mention of any mechanical failure or of any need to preserve the automobile.
January, 1982 Codefendants' subpoenaed State Farm's files which is the first notice by State Farm of Reid's claims against the codefendants.
March 8, 1982 Reid's attorney inquired of status of vehicle.
March 12, 1982 Claims representative Matalon of State Farm learned of the sale of the car to Elite Auto Body during 9/80 and its destruction one to one and one-half months thereafter.
The determinative issue on appeal is whether or not there exists triable issues of material fact which establish a duty on the part of State Farm to preserve the automobile involved in the accident for purposes of aiding permissive user Reid in his claim against third parties. 7
The thrust of plaintiff's argument on appeal is that since only one car was involved in the accident and there was no evidence of alcohol use by the driver Reid, that a reasonable inference existed that the cause of the accident could have been due to a mechanical defect in the automobile, and therefore State Farm did owe a duty to him to preserve the vehicle. Plaintiff argues that, when establishing the element of duty on the part of State Farm, the foreseeability of the risk under such circumstances is a question of fact for the jury.
Additionally, plaintiff argues in his reply brief that "reasonable investigation" is an issue with regard to State Farm's "duty of care" and that State Farm's "standard operating procedures" under such circumstances raises questions of material fact, i.e. that the foreseeability of injury to plaintiff's prospective economic claims against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hirsch v. General Motors Corp.
...Co., supra, set out the elements to determine whether a duty to preserve evidence arises. See id.; cf. Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 173 Cal.App.3d 557, 218 Cal.Rptr. 913 (1985). In County of Solano v. Delancy, supra, the court stated the most important factor was the foreseeabili......
-
Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp.
...to this issue: Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373 (1988); Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 173 Cal.App.3d 557, 218 Cal.Rptr. 913 (1985); Racine & Laramie, Ltd., Inc. v. Dept. of Parks and Rec., 11 Cal.App.4th 1026, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 335 (1992......
-
Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc., F019296
...Subsequent decisions have provided little detail regarding the contours of these torts. Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 557, 218 Cal.Rptr. 913 held that an insurer had no duty to preserve as evidence the damaged motor vehicle absent a specific request from the i......
-
Petrik v. Monarch Printing Corp.
...away what appears to be trash, simply because it is in an attorney's office. Similarly, in Reid v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1985), 173 Cal.App.3d 557, 218 Cal.Rptr. 913, the plaintiff was injured when the automobile insured by defendant collided with a guard rail. The car......