Pearson

Pearson v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 5, 20253:24-cv-06594California2,847 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

BACKGROUND

24 Safeco sold Rita and Demetrious Koutsoftas an insurance policy for their property, located 25 at 1303 and 1305 Walnut Street in Alameda, California (“the Property”). (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4, 26.)1 26 27 Around August 23, 2020, when the insurance policy “was in full force and effect, The Property[] suffered heavy damage in a fire.” (Id. ¶ 28.) “Rita Koutsoftas and/or Demetrious Koutsoftas sought coverage under The Policy.” (Id.) “Subsequently, and in exchange for valuable consideration, Rita Koutsoftas and Demetrious Koutsoftas assigned all rights that they had or might have under The Policy, and against defendants, to Mr. Pearson.” (Id. ¶ 26.) “Mr. Pearson also sought coverage under The Policy.” (Id. ¶ 28.) Because the parties disagreed about the actual cash value of the claim, Mr. Pearson moved to compel appraisal in the Alameda County Superior Court in January 2021. (Dkt. No. 26 at 5.) An appraisal award was issued in July 2022. (Id. at 196-97.) In February 2023, the Alameda County Superior Court granted Mr. Pearson’s unopposed petition to confirm the appraisal award. (Id. at 205.) The following month, the court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.