Newell

Newell v. State Farm General Insurance

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 1094·13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 343·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 780·2004 Daily Journal DAR 6068·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4378
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 26, 2004B157114California4,418 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

Plaintiffs, proposed class representatives, appeal from the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend to the class action allegations in their complaint against their homeowners’ insurance carriers regarding claims for policy benefits for damages incurred by the Northridge earthquake. The trial court found there was no reasonable possibility plaintiffs could satisfy the community of interest requirement for class certification and class treatment was not the superior method for resolving the litigation. We agree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Lawsuit and Class Allegations

The named plaintiffs in the operative third amended complaint are homeowners who were insured, including earthquake insurance, at the time of the Northridge earthquake. Diane Newell, individually and as a proposed class representative, brings suit against Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Exchange (collectively, Farmers), and Maria Parra and Barbara Inkman, individually and as proposed class representatives, bring suit against State Farm General Insurance Company. The named plaintiffs allege with respect to their insurance carrier that…

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.