Sacramento Insurance Company Stalls Settlement With Couple Who Lost Home, Part 4 of 6 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 acted in good faith and with reasonable diligence in their responses to XYZ’s questions. Plaintiffs are aware of their obligations to investigate if they lack information (Smith v. Circle P. Ranch Co. Inc. (App. 2 Dist. 1978) 150 Cal.Rptr. 828., however, plaintiffs are not able to answer many of the questions that XYZ has propounded. Plaintiffs have asked XYZ essentially what in particular they are seeking, and XYZ responded, it was not up to them to determine this fact. Well, then how can plaintiffs?

Mr. Hall is 84 years old. Though he is cooperative, he is not one to have long discussions and analysis of facts in one setting. It has taken a series of conversations to get additional facts. His allocation of time is short, and he does not provide all that is necessary immediately. He asks for patience and time when things are requested, in order that he can think and look for items. Plaintiffs responses were not willfully meant to evade or avoid answering.

Plaintiffs have produced all documents in their possession as stated above and there is no further responses as of this date to produce. Plaintiffs did serve the Responses to Document Production, contrary to XYZ statements. XYZ also admits receipt of documents, but because they are few in number, they suggest plaintiffs must be withholding other items and are not responsive. No, plaintiffs do not have any. Plaintiffs only want to settle, and whatever it takes to do so, It is not in their best interest to hide documents.

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

As well, the Halls cannot value their loss without speculating, that is why they believe it is fair to use the estimate to repair given by Hal Lee at this time. So, there is no evasion of the form interrogatory regarding value. This explanation was given in Susan Halls responses and there was no problem with it.

Universal Street was damaged in 2007, shortly after a sale collapsed. There was no rental income of the property at the time. This is information is known to XYZ, that is why they are denying the claim. The Halls have provided documents showing a sale price for the house two months prior the fire. Since the fire, property values have dropped. This places a variable in the equation that is hard for plaintiffs to adequately calculate a hard figure. Plaintiffs are not required to submit expert opinions at this point, and to guess would not be fair. Interrogatory relating to a contention of a party would be improper if it sought to tie party down in such way that it might deprive him of his substantive rights by precluding him from producing subsequently discovered facts at time of trial. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County 58 Cal.Rptr 870, 250 Cal. App. 2d 722. (See Part 5 of 6.)

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

Contact Information