Peet

Peet v. State Farm General Ins. Co. CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 17, 2014H039796California5,533 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Eddlee Peet obtained a wrongful death judgment against his brother-in- law, Mark Doyle, who had caused the death of plaintiff’s two-year-old son, Anthony. At the time of Anthony’s death, plaintiff and Anthony’s mother were both incarcerated, and Anthony was living at Doyle’s residence. After obtaining the wrongful death judgment against Doyle, plaintiff sought recovery from State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm), which had provided Doyle with a homeowner’s insurance policy at the time of Anthony’s death. Citing the insurance policy’s resident relative exclusion provision, State Farm denied coverage for Anthony’s death. Plaintiff then filed a complaint against State Farm, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. State Farm subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law Anthony’s death was not covered because of the resident relative exclusion provision of the insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. On appeal, plaintiff’s primary contention is that the trial court erred by finding that the resident relative exclusion…

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.