Ortega

Ortega v. Topa Insurance

Good Law
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 771·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 621·206 Cal. App. 4th 463·2012 WL 1877383
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 2012No. B228889California6,145 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Aldrich, J.

*466 Opinion

Plaintiff and class representative Eric E. Ortega had a restricted policy of automobile insurance in which the insurer, defendant Topa Insurance Company (Topa), provided two tiers of physical damage coverage, paying all of the reasonable costs incurred at the insurer’s preferred repair facility (PRF), but only 80 percent of the reasonable costs incurred at an unapproved repair facility selected by the insured. Ortega filed a class action complaint against Topa arising from the two-tier coverage alleging two statutory violations: Topa’s payment practice is unlawful under Insurance Code section 758.5, subdivision (d)(2) and the application for insurance did not prominently disclose the limited physical damage coverage in violation of subdivision (d)(1). 1 In several motions before class certification, the trial court determined that the Topa policy and application did not violate the statute and thereafter struck the class allegations because the operative second amended complaint (complaint) did not plead the requisite class requirements. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382.)

In what appears to be an issue of first impression, we conclude the insurance application meets the…

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.