Insurance Company Denies Coverage To Sacramento Family, Part 1 of 6

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this insurance bad faith lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs William and Susan Hall’s Request for Dismissal and Opposition to the Demurrer
Plaintiffs, William and Susan Hall (hereinafter, “Halls”), file this objection to the demurrer filed by XYZ Insurance Company of behalf of Daniel Black and Paul Smith and request its dismissal.

The Halls met Daniel Black, an agent for XYZ Insurance Company sometime prior to 1982 regarding insurance coverage. The Halls have records of premium payments dating from 1982 to present for automobiles and real property. The Halls and Daniel Black developed a long term relationship regarding their insurance policies. Throughout the years, Black answered the Halls insurance questions on coverage, premium payments, and purchase of various policies.

The Halls relied heavily on Black’s advice regarding their policies and a trust developed between them. The Halls had regularly discussions with Black and believed Black would advise them about their policy coverage if it was not in their best interest. As they say, he was their “insurance man,” as one would have a private doctor, or lawyer. Due to the length of the relationship, the frequent communications between the parties, and the number of premiums that they held with Black, they relied on the belief that he would take care of them and inform them of any necessary coverage problems.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In May 2007, their two-bedroom residential home in Sacramento, California, was arsoned. Black insured this home sometime prior 2001, or thereabouts. The Halls filed a claim for the fire damage and XYZ denied stating they had no coverage to restore the home because it was an act of vandalism while the home was unoccupied.

In May 2006, Black was informed Halls did not have tenants at Holly Street when plaintiffs discussed another property, the home of Ms. Hall’s deceased mother, who died in 2005. Black insured that property though it was vacant for several years during probate proceedings. At no time did Black inform the Halls of the potential problem they may face when the property was not occupied by tenants, and at no time did Black send the Halls the important declarations regarding the limitations to their insurance. The Halls received minimal pages regarding their polices and always the premium notices which they paid timely.

There was a short period in the late 1980s to early 1990s when XYZ dropped the Halls because of two nominal insurance claims, but it was Black who called and solicited their business again. After 27 years with XYZ insuring several automobiles and at least five real property structures, XYZ denies the claim to restore the Universal Street residence. (See Part 2 of 6.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information