Mata v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Filed 9/11/06 Mata v. Allstate Ins. Co. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| GABRIELA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B184480 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC049384) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cary Nishimoto, Judge. Affirmed.
James L. Kellner for Plaintiffs and Appellants Gabriela Mata and Ernest G. Mata.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, James E. Fitzgerald, James W. Denison, and Kathy Schmeckpeper for Defendants and Respondents Allstate Insurance Company and Mickey Herman.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Gabriela Mata and Ernest G. Mata (plaintiffs) brought an action for breach of contract, negligence, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty against their insurance company, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), and their insurance broker, Mickey Herman (Herman) (collectively defendants). The action arose out of an August 9, 2003, fire that destroyed a building housing plaintiffs' flower shop and was based on the asserted inadequacy of plaintiffs' insurance coverage. The trial court sustained, with leave to amend, defendants' demurrers to plaintiffs' complaint.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and omitting the causes of action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court sustained, with leave to amend, defendants' demurrer to the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in which they asserted causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and added back in a cause of action for negligence. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint, this time denying plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' action. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
â€
