Castro

Castro v. State Farm General Insurance Co.

Good Law
256 F. Supp. 3d 1048·2017 WL 2462203·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87708
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 7, 2017Case No. 15-cv-05728-WHOCalifornia5,579 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No.

Plaintiff Floyd , Castro submitted . a homeowner’s insurance claim to State Farm following the burglary of his home in April 2014, claiming that a significant amount of cash, a number of expensive tools and expensive musical equipment were stolen. State Farm denied the claim and voided Castro’s policy under its Concealment and Fraud provision because of Castro’s multiple material misrepresentations about the value and source of the stolen tools and equipment. 1 It now moves for summary judgment, or partial summary judgment, because its conduct was justified., Castro opposes because any misrepresentations are explained by plaintiffs memory problems, of which State Farm was fully aware. Indeed, he argues that State Farm’s-investigation was conducted in bad faith because, having knowledge of Castro’s memory problems, it should have sent him for an Independent Medical Exam prior to denying his claim for misrepresentations. Castro’s misrepresentations were' numerous and material, and he introduced no evidence of memory issues that a reasonable jury would find as an excuse for his obviously false and inconsistent submissions.…

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.