Razuki

I. BACKGROUND

24 Defendant issued an insurance policy to Plaintiff, effective from February 15, 2020 25 to February 15, 2021, providing coverage to a multi-tenant commercial building

1 In its reply brief, Defendant requests the Court strike Plaintiff’s opposition as untimely. The Court has already ruled that based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s represented medical condition, there was good cause to 28 (“Property”). (Doc. No. 43-1 at 13, 14.) On October 11, 2020, a fire occurred at the Property (“the Loss”). (Id. at 132.) Plaintiff notified Defendant of the Loss and sought Policy coverage of the damage to the Property. (Id.) Thereafter, one of Defendant’s claims professionals communicated with Plaintiff and informed him that an independent adjuster would assist Defendant in the coverage investigation, and issued Plaintiff a $50,000 check as an advance for the damage to the Property. (Id. at 134, 135, 137.) After the investigation, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s coverage request pursuant to the Policy’s Protective Safeguard Endorsement (“PSE”). (Id. at 168.) The PSE contained a condition, requiring Plaintiff to maintain the protective 10 …