Tan

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tan

Good Law
691 F. Supp. 1271·1988 WL 90558·1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9843
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 1988Civ. 87-1655-B(CM)California1,717 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brewster, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff insurer (State Farm) issued a homeowner’s policy to defendants, Bruce Tan and Rosemarie Tan. When the Tans submitted two claims for theft loss, State Farm sought to examine them separately to resolve its suspicions of possible fraud. The Tans refused to permit State Farm to examine Bruce Tan outside the presence of Rosemarie Tan. State Farm then brought this action for a declaration that it may compel separate examinations. The parties do not dispute the facts; thus, the issue is ripe for summary judgment.

I. JURISDICTION

The court has diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 .

II. FACTS

The Tans’ insurance policy contains a “cooperation clause” which confers on State Farm a contractual right to examine the Tans regarding their claims. Accordingly, the parties agreed to conduct Bruce Tan’s examination on October 26,1987, and Rosemarie Tan’s examination the following day.

At 9:30 a.m. on the scheduled day, counsel for State Farm arrived at the office of the Tans’ attorney, accompanied by two adjusters for State Farm. Bruce Tan did not appear, but Rosemarie Tan did. State Farm proceeded…

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.