Author: Maria Zurmati
Editor: Grace Shuman
Introduction
This case is an eye-opener for every policyholder as it explains the importance of treating an insurance policy as a specialized contract. Insurance contracts have special features, but they are still contracts to which the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation apply.
Facts of the Case
This case involves the appellate court’s review of the lower court’s decision granting The Insurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s (“Exchange”) summary judgment motion against plaintiff Melanie Celene Castaneda (“Castaneda”). Castaneda was attacked by the policyholder’s sister’s pit bull while the sister let the dog unleased to roam around the park near their residence. [i]At the time of the incident, the sister lived with the policyholder.[ii]
Castaneda filed a lawsuit against both the policyholder and her sister, seeking damages for the injuries she sustained when she was attached by the pit bull.[iii] Castaneda’s complaint against the policyholder was based on claims for negligence, common law strict liability, and statutory strict liability under Civil Code Section 3342.
Upon being notified of the lawsuit filed by Castaneda, the policyholder notified the Exchange of the “Castaneda action.”[iv] The Exchange initiated a coverage investigation. After concluding the investigation, the Exchange notified the policyholder they were denying coverage because Castaneda’s claim involved the ownership, custody, or care of a pit bull, which was excluded from coverage under the policy. [v]
On the other hand, Castaneda’s counsel sent two settlement demands for the policy’s limit in an attempt to settle the matter. Meanwhile, the policyholder’s counsel disputed the Exchange’s denial of coverage and argued the term of the policy which excluded coverage was ambiguous and, as such, should not apply to the policyholder because the attack had nothing to do with the “ownership, custody, or care of the dog.”[vi] However, the Exchange remained firm and was not persuaded by the policyholder’s argument regarding Exchange’s decision and did not reconsider its decision. [vii]
Subsequent to the Exchange’s denial of the policyholder’s request for payment, the policyholder assigned Castaneda his rights against the Exchange in return for Castaneda’s agreement not to enforce any judgment entered against the policyholder or her sister.[viii] On May 14, a default judgment in the amount of $7.5 million was entered against the policyholder and her sister in this action. [ix] In November 2021, the policyholder and Castaneda (as “assignee”) brought this action against the Exchange, asserting causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.[x] In this cause of action, plaintiffs alleged the Exchange had a duty to defend and indemnify the policyholder in the “Castaneda action” because the pit bull exclusion in the policy was such that could be interpreted to apply “only if the insured owns, has custody of, or control over the particular dog,” and the policyholder “did not own, have custody of, or control the pit bull that attacked and injured Castaneda.”[xi]
The Exchange filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no duty to defend the policyholder under the policy in question.[xii] According to the Exchange, the homeowner’s policy clearly and “unambiguously” excluded liability coverage for bodily injuries “arising out of the ownership of, custody of, or care for . . . any pit bull type of dog.” [xiii] The Exchange also argued that, because Castaneda’s claimed injuries were caused by a pit bull, there was no duty to defendant or indemnify the policyholder because injuries caused by a pit bull under this policy were excluded.[xiv]
Despite plaintiffs’ argument that the exclusion was ambiguous because it was unclear whose ownership, custody or control it referred to, the court issued a minute order in favor of the Exchange, finding the pit bull ownership exclusion to be unambiguous and applicable to Castaneda’s injuries, concluding there was no chance for coverage.[xv] Therefore, the court granted the Exchange’s summary judgment motion.[xvi]
Plaintiffs appealed the court’s ruling on the summary judgment motion and claimed summary judgment was improperly granted because the policy exclusion pertaining to injuries arising out of ownership of, custody of, or care for a pit bull was ambiguous. However, the appellate court concluded that plaintiffs’ arguments lacked merit and that summary judgment was properly granted.[xvii]
Takeaway
Insurance policies, even though they have some distinct features, they still are considered contracts. The rules of contractual interpretations apply. In essence, the terms of an insurance policy will be enforced if they are unambiguous and clear, and insurance policies should be written with that in mind.
Keep Reading
Audish v. Macias Builds Upon the Foundation Started in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provision, Inc. By Affirming the Admissibility of Medicare...
My New Year’s Resolutions at Work
California Civil Procedure Code Section 998 – a Means to An End
May or Must: California and the Ninth Circuit Applies Grammar Rules for FMLA
Par For the Course
Shining Light on Phantom Medical Bills–Lessons from Washington on Using Federal Hospital Price Transparency Rules to...
When Roads Diverge in the Wood: the Power of Risk in Building a Fulfilling Career and Stopping Nuclear Verdicts®
Ask Atty: Scott Ruksakiati
“Building” a Better Plan for Design Professional Expert Witnesses: Theater Patrons Trapped in Elevators After Architect’s Failure
More by this author
Barking Up the Wrong Policy
Is Your Ticket to the Baseball Game Unconscionable? Court Finds Ticket is a Valid Contract...
The California Civil Rights Department is Not Playing Games: $50 Million Settlement with Activision Blizzard for Female Employees
No “Getaway Car” For a Test Drive Gone Wrong