Rios

Rios v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.

Good Law
119 Cal. App. 4th 1020·15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 18·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1006·2004 Daily Journal DAR 7686·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5632
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 1, 2004B163709California3,028 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

Plaintiff, Araceil Rios doing business as Joyería Latina Americana (Rios), obtained an insurance policy for her jewelry store that she thought covered her for theft. Rios requested such coverage, but the policy actually issued did not include coverage for theft. Thereafter, Rios’s store was burglarized, and defendants, Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale) and UCA General Insurance Services (UCA), rejected her insurance claim for theft of the jewelry.

Rios sued, inter alia, Scottsdale (the insurer), UCA (the surplus lines broker through whom the coverage was placed), and Lin Lan (who owns UCA), alleging causes of action for breach of insurance contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The trial court granted summary judgment against Rios. We affirm, since (1) the causes of action for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith fail for lack of any coverage for the loss, (2) the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and fraud fail since no erroneous representations by Whilt, Rios’s insurance agent, can be imputed to Scottsdale or UCA, and (3) Whilt, as a matter of law, was not an…

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.