STATE EX REL. METZ v. Farmers Group, Inc.

In this appeal, appellant John Metz seeks to overturn the trial court’s grant of a judgment on the pleadings in favor of respondents. The present case, which was filed in July 2002, allegedly involves respondents’ handling of total vehicle loss claims. We agree with our colleagues in Division Five that Insurance Code section 1871.7 was not designed to prohibit fraud on the part of insurers, but rather to prohibit submission of fraudulent claims to insurers, and thus we affirm the judgment of dismissal.

This is appellant’s third attempt to assert a claim under section 1871.7 based upon an insurance company’s claims handling practices.

In State of California ex rel. Nee v. Unumprovident Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 442 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 491 ] (Unumprovident), appellant sought to assert a section 1871.7 claim against a disability insurer. Division Five of this court held that an insurer is not subject to a qui tam action under section 1871.7 based on its marketing and claims handling practices. (Unumprovident, at pp. 450-451.)

In April 2004, based on the same facts as those underlying the present action, appellant filed an action against CCC Information Services, Inc.…