HOLDINGS: -Delivery company did not establish that the drivers’ meal and rest break claims under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7(c), 512(a) and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11090(2), (11), (12) were preempted by 49 U.S.C.S. § 14501(c)(1) because nothing in the pleadings established that such requirements were likely to bind the company to particular routes; -There was a private right of action under Cal. Lab. Code § 218 on the claim of unlawful deductions from wages to cover ordinary business expenses because there is an action to the extent that an employer violates Cal. Lab. Code § 221 when it collects or receives from an employee any part of wages theretofore paid by said employer to said employee; -Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Labor Code § 2699(a), (i), action was not subject to dismissal because PAGA claims do not require class action certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Parties’ civil litigation attorney appeal.
Granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant insurer filed a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively partial summary adjudication in response to the claims of plaintiff homeowners for tortious breach of contract and punitive damages.
The homeowners had taken out a property insurance policy with the insurer. The dispute arose over insurance coverage for damages incurred by an earthquake. The court denied the motion of the insurer seeking a favorable ruling. The operative policy contained a provision stipulating that any action must be brought within one year of the date of loss. The homeowners, however, relied on the report of the insurer’s investigator as to the extent of the damage. As a result, the court rejected the argument of the insurer that the homeowners were not diligent in pursuing claims. The initial claim was timely, and upon discovery of further damage at a later date, the homeowners immediately contacted the insurer. It was thus disingenuous for the insurer to argue that the substantial damage discovered at a later date was not covered, when the insurer’s own adjuster, a purported expert, apparently did not notice the damage previously. The insurer was thus estopped from arguing he filing of the additional claims was time-barred.
The court denied the motion of the insurer for summary judgment or partial summary adjudication.