Preview
1 Stacy M. Tucker (SBN 218942)
2 stucker@kantorlaw.net
Jaclyn D. Conover (SBN 266749)
3 jconover@kantorlaw.net
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
4 19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, California 91324
5 Telephone: (818) 886 2525
6 Facsimile: (818) 350 6272
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
GARY KOOP
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
10
11
GARY KOOP, Case No.: SCV-266944
12
Plaintiff, (REDACTED) PLAINTIFF’S
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
(818) 886 2525
14 vs. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT
15 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, ADJUDICATION OF CAUSES OF
16
ACTION FOR BREACH OF
17 Defendant. CONTRACT, FRAUD,
MISREPRESENTATION AND
18 NEGLIGENCE AGAINST FIRE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE
19
[Filed concurrently with Motion for
20
Summary Judgement, Request for Judicial
21 Notice, Declarations of Stacy Tucker, Gary
Koop, Kenneth Bunger, Evidence in Support
22 and Proposed Order]
23 Date: January 11, 2023
`25 Time: 3 p.m.
Dept: 19
26
27 Complaint filed: August 24, 2020
Trial Date: February 23, 2023
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
1 Plaintiff, Gary Koop, hereby submits his Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
2 and Conclusions of Law in support his concurrently filed Motion for Summary Adjudication of
3 Causes of Action for Breach of Contract, Fraud, Misrepresentation and Negligence against Fire
4 Insurance Exchange pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c).
5 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
6 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S
7 CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD,
8 MISREPRESENTATION AND NEGLIGENCE
9 Plaintiff’s Undisputed Facts and Defendant’s Response and
10 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence
11
1. Plaintiff, Gary Koop, bought a custom-
12 built, 5 bedroom, 3.5 bath, 2,967 sq. foot home
at 2650 Amber Lane, Santa Rosa, California
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
(“the Property”) in the Reibli-Wallace
19839 Nordhoff Street
neighborhood in 2006, paying over $1 million
(818) 886 2525
14
for the home.
15
Supporting Evidence:
16 Koop Decl., ¶2-3
17 2. In the hills above Santa Rosa, Reibli-
18 Wallace and its adjacent neighborhood
Fountaingrove boast expansive views, multi-
19 acre lots, and large, custom homes.
20 Supporting Evidence:
Koop Decl., ¶2-3, Bunger Dec., ¶2
21
22 3. Amber Lane is a private road with eight
homes, with lots ranging in size from 3.6 acres
23 to over 12 acres. Plaintiff’s home was custom
built in 1976.
`25
Supporting Evidence:
26 Koop Decl., ¶4, Bunger Decl., ¶2
27
28 4. As originally built, the redwood home
included redwood steps leading up to large
double front doors. The house included oak
2
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
floors, stained glass windows, built-in etched
1 glass cabinetry, a marble fireplace, and floor-
2 to-ceiling built in bookshelves. The home was
a PG&E Award-Winning Passive Solar Home.
3
4 Supporting Evidence:
Bunger Decl., ¶s 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 18.
5
6 5. Plaintiff’s home had vaulted ceilings,
interior French doors, a custom-made redwood
7 spiral staircase with abalone inlays, crown
molding in every room and chair rail in the
8 majority of the rooms, three marble baths, a
wet bar, and a crystal chandelier. In 2004, the
9
Bungers installed a breakfast bar, granite
10 countertops, and Miele appliances.
11 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Exhibits 2, 3 and 4; Bunger
12 Decl., ¶s 5, 6, 10, 11, 16,
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
6. The Property also included a redwood barn
(818) 886 2525
14 designed to match the house, with an included
pump room for the 240 foot well. There was a
15 separate redwood garage, a basketball court,
and a baseball pitching machine field. On
16 April 7, 2006, the Bungers sold the Property to
17 Mark Picano for $1,055,000.
18 Supporting Evidence:
Bunger Decl. ¶s 17 and 24.
19
7. Plaintiff paid $1,025,000 when he
20
purchased the Property in September 2006.
21
Supporting Evidence:
22 Koop Decl., ¶2
23 8. Plaintiff used Hunsaker as his insurance
agent, as Hunsaker had insured the house with
`25
the prior owner and held himself out as an
26 authority on the property.
27 Supporting Evidence:
Koop Decl., ¶5
28
3
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
9. Since 1985, Hunsaker has been an
1 insurance agent of Farmers Insurance Group,
2 meaning that he works solely for Farmers and
represents Farmers with insureds.
3 (Hunsaker:14:18-25, 15:1-9.)
4 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., ¶17.
5
6
10. Hunsaker did not visit the home before
7
insuring it for Plaintiff. He simply pulled into
8 the driveway once to have him sign forms.
9 Supporting Evidence:
Koop Decl., ¶5
10
11. Hunsaker also did not visit the house
11 when he insured it originally for Mr. Picano,
12 stating that he may have “driven by it” to
“inspect” it.
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Supporting Evidence:
(818) 886 2525
14 Tucker Decl., Ex. 24
15 12. He never stepped foot inside the Property
16 and had no idea what it looked like inside.
Supporting Evidence:
17
Tucker Decl., Ex. 24
18
13. Farmers issued a low-end Protector Plus
19 insurance policy to Plaintiff on September 5,
2006, setting Coverage A limits of $478,000.
20
Supporting Evidence:
21
Declaration of J. Jones (“Jones Decl.”), Ex. 10.
22
14. Farmers used Residential Component
23 Technology, or “RCT,” as a software program
to prepare replacement estimates for homes in
`25 2006.
26
Supporting Evidence:
27 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 7, FIRE 323-24.)
28 15. By 2013, Farmers had transitioned to a
product called 360Value to increase the
4
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
automation in its replacement estimates while
1 also allowing for customization.
2
Supporting Evidence:
3 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 7, FIRE 323-24.)
4 16. In the 360Value program, the software
pre-populates most choices based on the
5
information provided by the insured. The
6 individual preparing the estimate has
significant flexibility to change those
7 prepopulated fields if he chooses, and
360Value encourages its users to do so in its
8 training materials.
9
Supporting Evidence:
10 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 7, FIRE 323-24.)
11 17. The 360Value software calculates the cost
of rebuilding differently depending on the
12 style and grade of house assigned in the
system. The grade choices are “standard,”
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
defined as “typical of standard tract-style
(818) 886 2525
14 houses built in recent decades;” “above
average,” defined on the Farmers’ website as
15 “upgraded tract style houses built in recent
decades;” “custom,” defined as “upgraded
16 tract-style houses with additional custom
17 features;” and “premium,” “custom-built
houses with plenty of premium features.”
18
Supporting Evidence:
19 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 14)
20
18. Where Mr. Koop’s home was custom-
21 built in 1976, it should have been calculated at
the “premium” level based on Farmers’ own
22 documentation. Farmers internal
documentation of the home included French
23 doors, “premium” and “deluxe” woodwork
and cabinetry and fixtures, custom fireplaces,
`25
oak flooring and “premium” tile.
26
Supporting Evidence:
27 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 6.)
28 19. When Plaintiff bought the home in 2006,
RCT lacked the flexibility to enter detailed
5
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
types of information in the database that
1 created the estimates.
2
Supporting Evidence:
3 (Tucker Decl., Ex 19.)
4 20. Hunsaker did not insure it as a “premium”
custom-built home, or even “custom.”
5 Hunsaker does not recall ever selecting a grade
6 for Plaintiff’s home in 360Value, and
apparently let it default to “above average.”
7
Supporting Evidence:
8 (Tucker Decl., Ex 3)
9
21. On the Farmers’ website in 2022, after
10
years of successive wildfires, Farmers
11 estimates the cost to rebuild Mr. Koop’s
original house at $703,000 when listed as
12 “above-average.” When correctly listed as
“premium,” the estimated rebuild cost is
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
$1,069,000, over 65% higher.
19839 Nordhoff Street
(818) 886 2525
14
15 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 20
16
17 22. Each Farmers estimate correctly lists the
features of the home – 2967 sq. ft., built in
18 1976, three marble bathrooms, crown molding
and chair rail, custom kitchen with a peninsula
19 bar and glass cabinets throughout, two rooms
with cathedral ceilings, two fireplaces, two
20 chandeliers, French doors, built in bookcases
21 and desk, and a spiral staircase, with columns
in the front of the home. There were no
22 “errors” for Plaintiff to spot and change when
he reviewed them, and the estimates provided
23 did not explain the “grade” of home used. The
only error was in how Hunsaker and Farmers
`25 inaccurately interpreted the information
26 Plaintiff provided. In 2016, the cost to rebuild
a custom home was approximately $450 per
27 square foot. At the time of the Tubbs fire, it
was estimated to be “$500–$800 for northeast
28 hillside custom homes in the Fountaingrove
area of Santa Rosa. ‘That's the bare minimum -
6
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
drywall, paint, baseboard.’” Yet in 2017
1 Farmers insured Plaintiff’s home for $221 per
2 square foot.
Supporting Evidence:
3 RJN, Exhibits B and C.
4
23. The Policy Declarations state, “The limit
5 of liability for this structure (Coverage A) is
6 based on an estimate of the cost to rebuild
your home, including an approximate cost for
7 labor and materials in your area, and specific
information that you have provided about your
8 home.” It also directs insureds to contact their
Farmers Agent to “ensure that your family is
9 property protected” and to learn the “coverage
10 options and our various other product offerings
that may be available to you.” The Policy also
11 includes extended replacement coverage. With
extended replacement coverage, “you must
12 have selected or increased the Coverage A
dwelling amount to an amount at least equal to
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
the estimated replacement cost of the
19839 Nordhoff Street
(818) 886 2525
14 dwelling…you must agree to any resulting
increases in the Coverage A “Dwelling” limit
15 and other stated limited as calculated.”
16 Supporting Evidence:
(Jones Decl, Ex. 10)
17
18 24. Farmers determines the replacement
estimates.
19
Supporting Evidence:
20 Tucker Decl,, Ex. 24
21
25. These statements would appear to directly
22 conflict with other sections of the policy
claiming that Farmers bears no responsibility
23 for selecting coverage limits.
`25 Supporting Evidence:
26 (Compare Jones Decl., Ex. 10, FIRE-CLAIMS
27 44 to FIRE-CLAIMS 49.)
28
7
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
26. Farmers began using 360Value in June
1 2007 for its high value homes only, continuing
2 to use its “RCT” system otherwise.
3 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 7.
4
27. On June 8, 2011, Farmers announced that
5
in response to the new Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 10,
6 § 2695.183, it would transition to using
360Value for every home, not just high value
7 homes.
8 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 8.
9
10 28. In 360Value, an insured’s “Primary
Information” “includes questions that make
11 the largest impact on the home’s replacement
cost.”
12
Supporting Evidence:
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Tucker Decl., Ex.13.
(818) 886 2525
14
29. One of the questions in that section is
15 “style” of the home. 360Value emphasizes the
importance of this information when it
16 explains its “Assumptive Program” that auto-
17 fills most of the information in an estimate.
18 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 9.
19
30. “The “Assumptive” program’s selection
20
of the Dwelling Quality Grade is driven by
21 important dwelling characteristics, such as
Year of Construction, Square Footage,
22 Number of Stories/Style of Home, and ZIP
Code.” Hunsaker left the “style” blank.
23
Supporting Evidence:
`25 Tucker Decl., Ex. 15.
26
31. On December 19, 2011, Farmers
27 announced that 360Value would now
automatically select the Dwelling Quality
28 Grade. Farmers’ policies and procedures stated
that the agent should not accept the assumptive
8
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
information input, but should check each item
1 with the insured.
2
Supporting Evidence:
3 Tucker Decl., Ex. 9.
4 32. It noted that if an estimate seemed too
low, it was likely due to the wrong quality
5
grade being selected, and that the more
6 expensive a home, the more detail should be
input to correctly insure it.
7
Supporting Evidence:
8 Tucker Decl., Ex. 9
9
33. The assumptions would be validated by
10 comparisons to Xactware’s claims adjustment
estimates. (Tucker Decl., Ex. 9.) These
11 programs are both owned by Verisk and are
based on the same data, meaning that they
12 simply reinforce each other’s assumptions
without any third-party data comparison.
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Supporting Evidence:
(818) 886 2525
14 Tucker Decl., Ex. 9.
15
34. Farmers also insisted that it was
16 imperative for agents to have “regular” FFRs
to review the dwelling features and confirm
17 the home quality grade.
18
Supporting Evidence:
19 Tucker Decl., Ex.12.
20
35. Hunsaker told Farmers that he never had a
21 FFR with Plaintiff.
22 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex.12.
23
`25 36. In 2013, Farmers sent out advice to its
agents on how to select a “style” of home for a
26
360Value estimate, noting that it affects the
27 valuation, and explaining that “based on the
ZIP code, Style of Construction and home
28 size, 360Value will pre-fill default data about
certain dwelling features….”
9
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
Supporting Evidence:
1 Tucker Decl., Ex. 13
2
37. Farmers provided clear direction to its
3 agents on how to determine the “quality
grade” of a home. If a home was custom-built,
4 it should be considered either “custom” or
“premium.”
5
6 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl. Ex. 14
7
38. Farmers noted, “The Dwelling Quality
8 Grade is one of the most critical components
of a Reconstruction Cost Estimate and it can
9
have a significant impact on the estimate
10 amount.”
11 Supporting Evidence:
(Tucker Decl. Ex. 14)
12
39. Farmers has a detailed chart of how to
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
determine the quality grade.
19839 Nordhoff Street
(818) 886 2525
14
Supporting Evidence:
15 (Tucker Decl. Ex. 14)
16 40. At the top of the chart there was an
explanation of how to rate a property as
17 “Above Grade,” “Custom” or “Premium” if it
18 has finishes that could be considered either
“Custom” or “Premium.” The chart states that
19 fixtures such as built-in bookcases, wet bars,
or cabinetry other than the kitchen and
20 bathrooms were considered premium. Chair
rail, crown molding, and baseboards
21 throughout the house were premium.
22 Countertops and vanities with marble should
be considered premium. Premium flooring
23 would be a mixture of high-end carpet, tile,
stone and hardwood. Plaintiff’s home, with all
`25 of these fixtures, would be “premium” under
Farmers’ own guidelines.
26
Supporting Evidence:
27
Tucker Decl., Ex.14; Bunger Decl., ¶s 3, 4, 5,
28 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14.
10
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
41. On April 1, 2013 Farmers stated that all
1 policies would migrate from RCT to
2 360Value.
3 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl. Ex. 10.
4
42. Agents were instructed to assign as the
5
home “quality grade” whatever “Kitchen
6 Quality Grade” had previously been assigned
in RCT.
7
Supporting Evidence:
8 Tucker Decl. Ex. 10.
9
43. In the application that Hunsaker submitted
10 for Plaintiff’s insurance, he had listed the
“Kitchen Quality Grade” as “Custom.”
11
Supporting Evidence:
12 Declaration of Christopher Wagner, Ex. 6.
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
44. Under Farmers’ own documentation, the
(818) 886 2525
14 Property should have been insured as at least
“Custom” quality grade.
15
Supporting Evidence:
16 Tucker Decl., Ex. 14.
17
45. Farmers instructed agents, “The key to
18 obtaining accurate dwelling feature
information is interviewing the prospect
19 during the quote process and verifying all of
the dwelling features. Inspecting the property
20 before you bind coverage helps you to confirm
eligibility, as well as dwelling feature
21
accuracy.”
22
Supporting Evidence:
23 Tucker Decl., Ex. 15.
`25 46. Hunsaker informed Plaintiff that he
26 obtained the information about the Property
from the prior owner, but in fact had never
27 discussed it with him and relied on the auto-
populated information provided. Hunsaker
28 thus believed it had been verified previously
by Hunsaker.
11
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
Supporting Evidence:
1 (Koop Decl. ¶5; Tucker Decl., Ex. 24)
2
47. In 2013, Gary Koop first contacted
3 Hunsaker to ask to review his policy coverage.
Hunsaker did not send him a written estimate
4 to review.
5
6 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 24.
7
48. In that discussion, Hunsaker decided to
8 raise his deductible and did not ask to lower
any coverages. Hunsaker confirmed that while
9
they reviewed Plaintiff’s specific coverages on
10 that call, he did not inform Plaintiff that higher
amounts were available since 2006 because
11 “He did not ask.”
12 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 24
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
(818) 886 2525
14
49. By 2015, Gary Koop had divorced,
15 working extensively with Hunsaker to sort out
his various insurance obligations related to the
16 separation. He was not an uninvolved
participant in his insurance –he spoke with
17 Hunsaker’s office 16 times in 2014.
18 Supporting Evidence:
19 Koop Decl., ¶8; Tucker Decl., Ex. 16)
20
21 50. Mr. Koop became concerned about the
adequacy of his insurance coverage after the
22 2015 Rocky, Humboldt, Jerusalem and Tesla
fires in his area. Plaintiff followed the
23
instructions in his Policy and on Farmers’
`25 website stating that if he was concerned about
having adequate home insurance coverage, he
26 should contact his agent.
27 Supporting Evidence:
Koop Decl., ¶9.
28
12
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
51. He called Hunsaker on September 1, 2015
1 to ask specifically if he had sufficient coverage
2 in the event of a wildfire.
3
4 Supporting Evidence:
Koop Decl. ¶9.
5
52. Liz Evans, a new employee of Hunsaker,
6 took his call that morning. September 1, 2015
7 was her first day working at the agency.
8 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 27
9
10
53. Ms. Evans had no prior knowledge of Mr.
11 Koop’s Policy history. While she admits her
12 standard practice would be to review the
history of the policy as part of a review, she
Northridge, California 91324
13 did not recall doing so for Mr. Koop and did
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
not believe she had a responsibility to do so.
(818) 886 2525
14
Supporting Evidence:
15 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27
16
17
54. Ms. Evans did not check to see how old
18 the Policy was, or whether it was correctly
transitioned to 360Value.
19
Supporting Evidence:
20 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27
21
22
55. Ms. Evans also did not review the
23 historical coverage increases of the Policy, and
had not been aware that Farmers had not made
`25 any increases to Mr. Koop’s coverage for five
of the nine years it had insured him at that
26 point.
27 Supporting Evidence:
28 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27
13
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
1
2 56. Farmers had originally insured the
Property for $495,000 in 2006. From there it
3 provided coverage to reflect inflation and
increases in building costs as follows:
4 $495,000 in 2007; $530,000 in 2008; $548,000
in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; and then an
5 increase to $564,000 in 2014.
6
Supporting Evidence:
7 Tucker Decl., Ex. 28
8 57. Ms. Evans failed to make a note of the
September 1, 2015 call, but forwarded a
9 360Value estimate to Mr. Koop showing that it
would cost him $502,000 to replace his home,
10
and asked him to correct any errors.
11
Supporting Evidence:
12 (Koop Decl. ¶9; Tucker Decl., Ex. 3.)
Northridge, California 91324
13 58. The estimate that Hunsaker sent to Mr.
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Koop was not the complete document, but
(818) 886 2525
14 only a summary. (Compare Tucker Decl.
Exhibits 3 and 5). The complete document,
15
produced during litigation, confirms that all
16 the rooms had crown molding, half had chair
rail, all the baths had marble, the chandeliers
17 were leaded crystal, the home featured built-in
bookcases, a built-in desk, French doors,
18 columns, a spiral staircase, skylights and a wet
bar. It also confirmed that the “style” of the
19
house had been listed as “unknown.”
20
Supporting Evidence:
21
(Tucker Decl., Ex. 5)
22
23 59. Ms. Evans did not discuss the quality
grade of the house with Plaintiff, erroneously
`25 believing that the insured had selected the
grade.
26
27 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 27
28
14
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
60. By only reviewing the 360Value estimate
1 with Mr. Koop, she did not review the actual
2 coverages available to him at all, as those are
not listed on the 360Value estimate
3
4 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 27, Koop Decl., ¶9
5
61. She simply asked him to review the
6
estimate and let her know if there were any
7 errors in it. Ms. Evans’ testimony was
contradictory. She testified that she did not
8 recall whether or not she heard back from Mr.
Koop about his coverage. Evans then testified
9 that when she wrote that “all was okay,” she
must have meant that she assumed “all was
10
okay” because she did not hear back from Mr.
11 Koop, despite testifying immediately before
that she did not recall whether or not she heard
12 back from him.
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
Supporting Evidence:
19839 Nordhoff Street
Tucker Decl., Ex. 27
(818) 886 2525
14
15 62. Mr. Koop, meanwhile, confirmed that Ms.
Evans affirmatively told him he had sufficient
16 coverage, a recollection that matches Ms.
Evans’ written note.
17
Supporting Evidence:
18 (Koop Decl., ¶9)
19 63. Though Ms. Evans confirmed repeatedly
20 that Plaintiff wanted to review the accuracy of
his insurance coverage and that she reviewed
21 Plaintiff’s “coverages” with him, she admitted
later that she did not actually review any of the
22 calculated values with him.
23 Supporting Evidence:
`25 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27
26 64. She only reviewed certain information
listed in the 360Value estimate, a document
27 that does not list the insurance coverages at all,
with the result that she did not discuss his
28 insurance coverage with him at all.
15
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
Supporting Evidence:
1 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27
2
65. On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff’s home
3 was destroyed in the Tubbs Fire.
4 Supporting Evidence:
(Koop Decl. ¶10.)
5
66. Once able to obtain a rebuilding estimate
6 in 2019, Plaintiff learned that he was
7 dramatically underinsured. Farmers already
knew this; it confirmed within a month of the
8 claim that Plaintiff’s home was “of a premium
grade quality” and its own post-fire estimate
9 for replacing the Property “exceeds the policy
limits on an ACV basis and ERC on an RCV
10
basis.”
11
Supporting Evidence:
12 Tucker Decl., Ex. 29
Northridge, California 91324
13 67. Plaintiff raised his concerns to Farmers in
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
a letter dated June 17, 2019, and asked it to
(818) 886 2525
14 “review the value of my home and comparable
homes before the fire.”
15
16 Supporting Evidence:
(Tucker Decl., Ex.17.)
17
18 68. Per Farmers’ internal policies and
procedures, when an insured asks to have his
19 policy limits reformed due to underinsurance,
20 a “claims investigator” speaks with the insured
and the agent to determine if a reformation
21 should be pursued. If the facts support
reformation, it is submitted to underwriting for
22 review.
23 Supporting Evidence:
(Tucker Decl., Ex. 18.)
`25
26 69. Investigator Justin Price of Farmers spoke
with both Plaintiff and Hunsaker. He left
27 Hunsaker a voicemail, stating that to evaluate
Plaintiff’s claims he needed to know why the
28 quality grade was set at above average, if the
house was custom grade, if Hunsaker ever
16
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
visited the property, if Plaintiff ever requested
1 any coverage changes, and if Plaintiff ever
2 asked for or was offered 50% extended
replacement coverage.
3
Supporting Evidence:
4 Tucker Decl., Ex. 19
5 70. Hunsaker admitted that he had no idea if
the computer field offering different options of
6
building grade had been an option in 2006, and
7 had not ever updated the information on the
home to fill in the more detailed fields now
8 available. Hunsaker told Farmers that did not
know if Plaintiff’s home was listed as a
9 custom home, and did not know whether or
not it should be.
10
11 Supporting Evidence:
Tucker Decl., Ex. 19
12
Northridge, California 91324
13
KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
71. When asked why the Property was listed
(818) 886 2525
14 as “above grade” and not “custom” or
“premium,” Hunsaker responded: “Usually it
15
based on what type of house it is.. depending
16 on the features etc.. based on what the 360
evaluation system provides.. taking a look
17 what the house would classify as, we did have
the home insured with a prior owner Mark
18 Picano under policy 926773075 valued at
478K... then insured bought the house from
19
him. Agent said this policy was written such a
20 long time ago there is no "style code" showing
as unknown.”
21
Supporting Evidence:
22 Tucker Decl., Ex. 19
23 72. Hunsaker said that instead of meeting with
`25 clients annually for an FFR as instructed to by
Farmers’ policies and procedures, he
26 “participated in the post card program wi
Preview
1 Stacy M. Tucker (SBN 218942) 2 stucker@kantorlaw.net Jaclyn D. Conover (SBN 266749) 3 jconover@kantorlaw.net KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 4 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, California 91324 5 Telephone: (818) 886 2525 6 Facsimile: (818) 350 6272 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, GARY KOOP 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 10 11 GARY KOOP, Case No.: SCV-266944 12 Plaintiff, (REDACTED) PLAINTIFF’S Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street SEPARATE STATEMENT OF (818) 886 2525 14 vs. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT 15 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, dba OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, ADJUDICATION OF CAUSES OF 16 ACTION FOR BREACH OF 17 Defendant. CONTRACT, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND 18 NEGLIGENCE AGAINST FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE 19 [Filed concurrently with Motion for 20 Summary Judgement, Request for Judicial 21 Notice, Declarations of Stacy Tucker, Gary Koop, Kenneth Bunger, Evidence in Support 22 and Proposed Order] 23 Date: January 11, 2023 `25 Time: 3 p.m. Dept: 19 26 27 Complaint filed: August 24, 2020 Trial Date: February 23, 2023 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 1 Plaintiff, Gary Koop, hereby submits his Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts 2 and Conclusions of Law in support his concurrently filed Motion for Summary Adjudication of 3 Causes of Action for Breach of Contract, Fraud, Misrepresentation and Negligence against Fire 4 Insurance Exchange pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c). 5 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 6 IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 7 CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD, 8 MISREPRESENTATION AND NEGLIGENCE 9 Plaintiff’s Undisputed Facts and Defendant’s Response and 10 Supporting Evidence Supporting Evidence 11 1. Plaintiff, Gary Koop, bought a custom- 12 built, 5 bedroom, 3.5 bath, 2,967 sq. foot home at 2650 Amber Lane, Santa Rosa, California Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP (“the Property”) in the Reibli-Wallace 19839 Nordhoff Street neighborhood in 2006, paying over $1 million (818) 886 2525 14 for the home. 15 Supporting Evidence: 16 Koop Decl., ¶2-3 17 2. In the hills above Santa Rosa, Reibli- 18 Wallace and its adjacent neighborhood Fountaingrove boast expansive views, multi- 19 acre lots, and large, custom homes. 20 Supporting Evidence: Koop Decl., ¶2-3, Bunger Dec., ¶2 21 22 3. Amber Lane is a private road with eight homes, with lots ranging in size from 3.6 acres 23 to over 12 acres. Plaintiff’s home was custom built in 1976. `25 Supporting Evidence: 26 Koop Decl., ¶4, Bunger Decl., ¶2 27 28 4. As originally built, the redwood home included redwood steps leading up to large double front doors. The house included oak 2 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP floors, stained glass windows, built-in etched 1 glass cabinetry, a marble fireplace, and floor- 2 to-ceiling built in bookshelves. The home was a PG&E Award-Winning Passive Solar Home. 3 4 Supporting Evidence: Bunger Decl., ¶s 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 18. 5 6 5. Plaintiff’s home had vaulted ceilings, interior French doors, a custom-made redwood 7 spiral staircase with abalone inlays, crown molding in every room and chair rail in the 8 majority of the rooms, three marble baths, a wet bar, and a crystal chandelier. In 2004, the 9 Bungers installed a breakfast bar, granite 10 countertops, and Miele appliances. 11 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Exhibits 2, 3 and 4; Bunger 12 Decl., ¶s 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street 6. The Property also included a redwood barn (818) 886 2525 14 designed to match the house, with an included pump room for the 240 foot well. There was a 15 separate redwood garage, a basketball court, and a baseball pitching machine field. On 16 April 7, 2006, the Bungers sold the Property to 17 Mark Picano for $1,055,000. 18 Supporting Evidence: Bunger Decl. ¶s 17 and 24. 19 7. Plaintiff paid $1,025,000 when he 20 purchased the Property in September 2006. 21 Supporting Evidence: 22 Koop Decl., ¶2 23 8. Plaintiff used Hunsaker as his insurance agent, as Hunsaker had insured the house with `25 the prior owner and held himself out as an 26 authority on the property. 27 Supporting Evidence: Koop Decl., ¶5 28 3 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 9. Since 1985, Hunsaker has been an 1 insurance agent of Farmers Insurance Group, 2 meaning that he works solely for Farmers and represents Farmers with insureds. 3 (Hunsaker:14:18-25, 15:1-9.) 4 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., ¶17. 5 6 10. Hunsaker did not visit the home before 7 insuring it for Plaintiff. He simply pulled into 8 the driveway once to have him sign forms. 9 Supporting Evidence: Koop Decl., ¶5 10 11. Hunsaker also did not visit the house 11 when he insured it originally for Mr. Picano, 12 stating that he may have “driven by it” to “inspect” it. Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Supporting Evidence: (818) 886 2525 14 Tucker Decl., Ex. 24 15 12. He never stepped foot inside the Property 16 and had no idea what it looked like inside. Supporting Evidence: 17 Tucker Decl., Ex. 24 18 13. Farmers issued a low-end Protector Plus 19 insurance policy to Plaintiff on September 5, 2006, setting Coverage A limits of $478,000. 20 Supporting Evidence: 21 Declaration of J. Jones (“Jones Decl.”), Ex. 10. 22 14. Farmers used Residential Component 23 Technology, or “RCT,” as a software program to prepare replacement estimates for homes in `25 2006. 26 Supporting Evidence: 27 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 7, FIRE 323-24.) 28 15. By 2013, Farmers had transitioned to a product called 360Value to increase the 4 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP automation in its replacement estimates while 1 also allowing for customization. 2 Supporting Evidence: 3 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 7, FIRE 323-24.) 4 16. In the 360Value program, the software pre-populates most choices based on the 5 information provided by the insured. The 6 individual preparing the estimate has significant flexibility to change those 7 prepopulated fields if he chooses, and 360Value encourages its users to do so in its 8 training materials. 9 Supporting Evidence: 10 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 7, FIRE 323-24.) 11 17. The 360Value software calculates the cost of rebuilding differently depending on the 12 style and grade of house assigned in the system. The grade choices are “standard,” Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street defined as “typical of standard tract-style (818) 886 2525 14 houses built in recent decades;” “above average,” defined on the Farmers’ website as 15 “upgraded tract style houses built in recent decades;” “custom,” defined as “upgraded 16 tract-style houses with additional custom 17 features;” and “premium,” “custom-built houses with plenty of premium features.” 18 Supporting Evidence: 19 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 14) 20 18. Where Mr. Koop’s home was custom- 21 built in 1976, it should have been calculated at the “premium” level based on Farmers’ own 22 documentation. Farmers internal documentation of the home included French 23 doors, “premium” and “deluxe” woodwork and cabinetry and fixtures, custom fireplaces, `25 oak flooring and “premium” tile. 26 Supporting Evidence: 27 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 6.) 28 19. When Plaintiff bought the home in 2006, RCT lacked the flexibility to enter detailed 5 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP types of information in the database that 1 created the estimates. 2 Supporting Evidence: 3 (Tucker Decl., Ex 19.) 4 20. Hunsaker did not insure it as a “premium” custom-built home, or even “custom.” 5 Hunsaker does not recall ever selecting a grade 6 for Plaintiff’s home in 360Value, and apparently let it default to “above average.” 7 Supporting Evidence: 8 (Tucker Decl., Ex 3) 9 21. On the Farmers’ website in 2022, after 10 years of successive wildfires, Farmers 11 estimates the cost to rebuild Mr. Koop’s original house at $703,000 when listed as 12 “above-average.” When correctly listed as “premium,” the estimated rebuild cost is Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP $1,069,000, over 65% higher. 19839 Nordhoff Street (818) 886 2525 14 15 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 20 16 17 22. Each Farmers estimate correctly lists the features of the home – 2967 sq. ft., built in 18 1976, three marble bathrooms, crown molding and chair rail, custom kitchen with a peninsula 19 bar and glass cabinets throughout, two rooms with cathedral ceilings, two fireplaces, two 20 chandeliers, French doors, built in bookcases 21 and desk, and a spiral staircase, with columns in the front of the home. There were no 22 “errors” for Plaintiff to spot and change when he reviewed them, and the estimates provided 23 did not explain the “grade” of home used. The only error was in how Hunsaker and Farmers `25 inaccurately interpreted the information 26 Plaintiff provided. In 2016, the cost to rebuild a custom home was approximately $450 per 27 square foot. At the time of the Tubbs fire, it was estimated to be “$500–$800 for northeast 28 hillside custom homes in the Fountaingrove area of Santa Rosa. ‘That's the bare minimum - 6 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP drywall, paint, baseboard.’” Yet in 2017 1 Farmers insured Plaintiff’s home for $221 per 2 square foot. Supporting Evidence: 3 RJN, Exhibits B and C. 4 23. The Policy Declarations state, “The limit 5 of liability for this structure (Coverage A) is 6 based on an estimate of the cost to rebuild your home, including an approximate cost for 7 labor and materials in your area, and specific information that you have provided about your 8 home.” It also directs insureds to contact their Farmers Agent to “ensure that your family is 9 property protected” and to learn the “coverage 10 options and our various other product offerings that may be available to you.” The Policy also 11 includes extended replacement coverage. With extended replacement coverage, “you must 12 have selected or increased the Coverage A dwelling amount to an amount at least equal to Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP the estimated replacement cost of the 19839 Nordhoff Street (818) 886 2525 14 dwelling…you must agree to any resulting increases in the Coverage A “Dwelling” limit 15 and other stated limited as calculated.” 16 Supporting Evidence: (Jones Decl, Ex. 10) 17 18 24. Farmers determines the replacement estimates. 19 Supporting Evidence: 20 Tucker Decl,, Ex. 24 21 25. These statements would appear to directly 22 conflict with other sections of the policy claiming that Farmers bears no responsibility 23 for selecting coverage limits. `25 Supporting Evidence: 26 (Compare Jones Decl., Ex. 10, FIRE-CLAIMS 27 44 to FIRE-CLAIMS 49.) 28 7 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 26. Farmers began using 360Value in June 1 2007 for its high value homes only, continuing 2 to use its “RCT” system otherwise. 3 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 7. 4 27. On June 8, 2011, Farmers announced that 5 in response to the new Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 10, 6 § 2695.183, it would transition to using 360Value for every home, not just high value 7 homes. 8 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 8. 9 10 28. In 360Value, an insured’s “Primary Information” “includes questions that make 11 the largest impact on the home’s replacement cost.” 12 Supporting Evidence: Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Tucker Decl., Ex.13. (818) 886 2525 14 29. One of the questions in that section is 15 “style” of the home. 360Value emphasizes the importance of this information when it 16 explains its “Assumptive Program” that auto- 17 fills most of the information in an estimate. 18 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 9. 19 30. “The “Assumptive” program’s selection 20 of the Dwelling Quality Grade is driven by 21 important dwelling characteristics, such as Year of Construction, Square Footage, 22 Number of Stories/Style of Home, and ZIP Code.” Hunsaker left the “style” blank. 23 Supporting Evidence: `25 Tucker Decl., Ex. 15. 26 31. On December 19, 2011, Farmers 27 announced that 360Value would now automatically select the Dwelling Quality 28 Grade. Farmers’ policies and procedures stated that the agent should not accept the assumptive 8 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP information input, but should check each item 1 with the insured. 2 Supporting Evidence: 3 Tucker Decl., Ex. 9. 4 32. It noted that if an estimate seemed too low, it was likely due to the wrong quality 5 grade being selected, and that the more 6 expensive a home, the more detail should be input to correctly insure it. 7 Supporting Evidence: 8 Tucker Decl., Ex. 9 9 33. The assumptions would be validated by 10 comparisons to Xactware’s claims adjustment estimates. (Tucker Decl., Ex. 9.) These 11 programs are both owned by Verisk and are based on the same data, meaning that they 12 simply reinforce each other’s assumptions without any third-party data comparison. Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Supporting Evidence: (818) 886 2525 14 Tucker Decl., Ex. 9. 15 34. Farmers also insisted that it was 16 imperative for agents to have “regular” FFRs to review the dwelling features and confirm 17 the home quality grade. 18 Supporting Evidence: 19 Tucker Decl., Ex.12. 20 35. Hunsaker told Farmers that he never had a 21 FFR with Plaintiff. 22 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex.12. 23 `25 36. In 2013, Farmers sent out advice to its agents on how to select a “style” of home for a 26 360Value estimate, noting that it affects the 27 valuation, and explaining that “based on the ZIP code, Style of Construction and home 28 size, 360Value will pre-fill default data about certain dwelling features….” 9 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP Supporting Evidence: 1 Tucker Decl., Ex. 13 2 37. Farmers provided clear direction to its 3 agents on how to determine the “quality grade” of a home. If a home was custom-built, 4 it should be considered either “custom” or “premium.” 5 6 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl. Ex. 14 7 38. Farmers noted, “The Dwelling Quality 8 Grade is one of the most critical components of a Reconstruction Cost Estimate and it can 9 have a significant impact on the estimate 10 amount.” 11 Supporting Evidence: (Tucker Decl. Ex. 14) 12 39. Farmers has a detailed chart of how to Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP determine the quality grade. 19839 Nordhoff Street (818) 886 2525 14 Supporting Evidence: 15 (Tucker Decl. Ex. 14) 16 40. At the top of the chart there was an explanation of how to rate a property as 17 “Above Grade,” “Custom” or “Premium” if it 18 has finishes that could be considered either “Custom” or “Premium.” The chart states that 19 fixtures such as built-in bookcases, wet bars, or cabinetry other than the kitchen and 20 bathrooms were considered premium. Chair rail, crown molding, and baseboards 21 throughout the house were premium. 22 Countertops and vanities with marble should be considered premium. Premium flooring 23 would be a mixture of high-end carpet, tile, stone and hardwood. Plaintiff’s home, with all `25 of these fixtures, would be “premium” under Farmers’ own guidelines. 26 Supporting Evidence: 27 Tucker Decl., Ex.14; Bunger Decl., ¶s 3, 4, 5, 28 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14. 10 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 41. On April 1, 2013 Farmers stated that all 1 policies would migrate from RCT to 2 360Value. 3 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl. Ex. 10. 4 42. Agents were instructed to assign as the 5 home “quality grade” whatever “Kitchen 6 Quality Grade” had previously been assigned in RCT. 7 Supporting Evidence: 8 Tucker Decl. Ex. 10. 9 43. In the application that Hunsaker submitted 10 for Plaintiff’s insurance, he had listed the “Kitchen Quality Grade” as “Custom.” 11 Supporting Evidence: 12 Declaration of Christopher Wagner, Ex. 6. Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street 44. Under Farmers’ own documentation, the (818) 886 2525 14 Property should have been insured as at least “Custom” quality grade. 15 Supporting Evidence: 16 Tucker Decl., Ex. 14. 17 45. Farmers instructed agents, “The key to 18 obtaining accurate dwelling feature information is interviewing the prospect 19 during the quote process and verifying all of the dwelling features. Inspecting the property 20 before you bind coverage helps you to confirm eligibility, as well as dwelling feature 21 accuracy.” 22 Supporting Evidence: 23 Tucker Decl., Ex. 15. `25 46. Hunsaker informed Plaintiff that he 26 obtained the information about the Property from the prior owner, but in fact had never 27 discussed it with him and relied on the auto- populated information provided. Hunsaker 28 thus believed it had been verified previously by Hunsaker. 11 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP Supporting Evidence: 1 (Koop Decl. ¶5; Tucker Decl., Ex. 24) 2 47. In 2013, Gary Koop first contacted 3 Hunsaker to ask to review his policy coverage. Hunsaker did not send him a written estimate 4 to review. 5 6 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 24. 7 48. In that discussion, Hunsaker decided to 8 raise his deductible and did not ask to lower any coverages. Hunsaker confirmed that while 9 they reviewed Plaintiff’s specific coverages on 10 that call, he did not inform Plaintiff that higher amounts were available since 2006 because 11 “He did not ask.” 12 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 24 Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street (818) 886 2525 14 49. By 2015, Gary Koop had divorced, 15 working extensively with Hunsaker to sort out his various insurance obligations related to the 16 separation. He was not an uninvolved participant in his insurance –he spoke with 17 Hunsaker’s office 16 times in 2014. 18 Supporting Evidence: 19 Koop Decl., ¶8; Tucker Decl., Ex. 16) 20 21 50. Mr. Koop became concerned about the adequacy of his insurance coverage after the 22 2015 Rocky, Humboldt, Jerusalem and Tesla fires in his area. Plaintiff followed the 23 instructions in his Policy and on Farmers’ `25 website stating that if he was concerned about having adequate home insurance coverage, he 26 should contact his agent. 27 Supporting Evidence: Koop Decl., ¶9. 28 12 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 51. He called Hunsaker on September 1, 2015 1 to ask specifically if he had sufficient coverage 2 in the event of a wildfire. 3 4 Supporting Evidence: Koop Decl. ¶9. 5 52. Liz Evans, a new employee of Hunsaker, 6 took his call that morning. September 1, 2015 7 was her first day working at the agency. 8 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 27 9 10 53. Ms. Evans had no prior knowledge of Mr. 11 Koop’s Policy history. While she admits her 12 standard practice would be to review the history of the policy as part of a review, she Northridge, California 91324 13 did not recall doing so for Mr. Koop and did KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street not believe she had a responsibility to do so. (818) 886 2525 14 Supporting Evidence: 15 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27 16 17 54. Ms. Evans did not check to see how old 18 the Policy was, or whether it was correctly transitioned to 360Value. 19 Supporting Evidence: 20 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27 21 22 55. Ms. Evans also did not review the 23 historical coverage increases of the Policy, and had not been aware that Farmers had not made `25 any increases to Mr. Koop’s coverage for five of the nine years it had insured him at that 26 point. 27 Supporting Evidence: 28 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27 13 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 1 2 56. Farmers had originally insured the Property for $495,000 in 2006. From there it 3 provided coverage to reflect inflation and increases in building costs as follows: 4 $495,000 in 2007; $530,000 in 2008; $548,000 in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; and then an 5 increase to $564,000 in 2014. 6 Supporting Evidence: 7 Tucker Decl., Ex. 28 8 57. Ms. Evans failed to make a note of the September 1, 2015 call, but forwarded a 9 360Value estimate to Mr. Koop showing that it would cost him $502,000 to replace his home, 10 and asked him to correct any errors. 11 Supporting Evidence: 12 (Koop Decl. ¶9; Tucker Decl., Ex. 3.) Northridge, California 91324 13 58. The estimate that Hunsaker sent to Mr. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Koop was not the complete document, but (818) 886 2525 14 only a summary. (Compare Tucker Decl. Exhibits 3 and 5). The complete document, 15 produced during litigation, confirms that all 16 the rooms had crown molding, half had chair rail, all the baths had marble, the chandeliers 17 were leaded crystal, the home featured built-in bookcases, a built-in desk, French doors, 18 columns, a spiral staircase, skylights and a wet bar. It also confirmed that the “style” of the 19 house had been listed as “unknown.” 20 Supporting Evidence: 21 (Tucker Decl., Ex. 5) 22 23 59. Ms. Evans did not discuss the quality grade of the house with Plaintiff, erroneously `25 believing that the insured had selected the grade. 26 27 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 27 28 14 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP 60. By only reviewing the 360Value estimate 1 with Mr. Koop, she did not review the actual 2 coverages available to him at all, as those are not listed on the 360Value estimate 3 4 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 27, Koop Decl., ¶9 5 61. She simply asked him to review the 6 estimate and let her know if there were any 7 errors in it. Ms. Evans’ testimony was contradictory. She testified that she did not 8 recall whether or not she heard back from Mr. Koop about his coverage. Evans then testified 9 that when she wrote that “all was okay,” she must have meant that she assumed “all was 10 okay” because she did not hear back from Mr. 11 Koop, despite testifying immediately before that she did not recall whether or not she heard 12 back from him. Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP Supporting Evidence: 19839 Nordhoff Street Tucker Decl., Ex. 27 (818) 886 2525 14 15 62. Mr. Koop, meanwhile, confirmed that Ms. Evans affirmatively told him he had sufficient 16 coverage, a recollection that matches Ms. Evans’ written note. 17 Supporting Evidence: 18 (Koop Decl., ¶9) 19 63. Though Ms. Evans confirmed repeatedly 20 that Plaintiff wanted to review the accuracy of his insurance coverage and that she reviewed 21 Plaintiff’s “coverages” with him, she admitted later that she did not actually review any of the 22 calculated values with him. 23 Supporting Evidence: `25 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27 26 64. She only reviewed certain information listed in the 360Value estimate, a document 27 that does not list the insurance coverages at all, with the result that she did not discuss his 28 insurance coverage with him at all. 15 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP Supporting Evidence: 1 Tucker Decl., Ex. 27 2 65. On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff’s home 3 was destroyed in the Tubbs Fire. 4 Supporting Evidence: (Koop Decl. ¶10.) 5 66. Once able to obtain a rebuilding estimate 6 in 2019, Plaintiff learned that he was 7 dramatically underinsured. Farmers already knew this; it confirmed within a month of the 8 claim that Plaintiff’s home was “of a premium grade quality” and its own post-fire estimate 9 for replacing the Property “exceeds the policy limits on an ACV basis and ERC on an RCV 10 basis.” 11 Supporting Evidence: 12 Tucker Decl., Ex. 29 Northridge, California 91324 13 67. Plaintiff raised his concerns to Farmers in KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street a letter dated June 17, 2019, and asked it to (818) 886 2525 14 “review the value of my home and comparable homes before the fire.” 15 16 Supporting Evidence: (Tucker Decl., Ex.17.) 17 18 68. Per Farmers’ internal policies and procedures, when an insured asks to have his 19 policy limits reformed due to underinsurance, 20 a “claims investigator” speaks with the insured and the agent to determine if a reformation 21 should be pursued. If the facts support reformation, it is submitted to underwriting for 22 review. 23 Supporting Evidence: (Tucker Decl., Ex. 18.) `25 26 69. Investigator Justin Price of Farmers spoke with both Plaintiff and Hunsaker. He left 27 Hunsaker a voicemail, stating that to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims he needed to know why the 28 quality grade was set at above average, if the house was custom grade, if Hunsaker ever 16 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP visited the property, if Plaintiff ever requested 1 any coverage changes, and if Plaintiff ever 2 asked for or was offered 50% extended replacement coverage. 3 Supporting Evidence: 4 Tucker Decl., Ex. 19 5 70. Hunsaker admitted that he had no idea if the computer field offering different options of 6 building grade had been an option in 2006, and 7 had not ever updated the information on the home to fill in the more detailed fields now 8 available. Hunsaker told Farmers that did not know if Plaintiff’s home was listed as a 9 custom home, and did not know whether or not it should be. 10 11 Supporting Evidence: Tucker Decl., Ex. 19 12 Northridge, California 91324 13 KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street 71. When asked why the Property was listed (818) 886 2525 14 as “above grade” and not “custom” or “premium,” Hunsaker responded: “Usually it 15 based on what type of house it is.. depending 16 on the features etc.. based on what the 360 evaluation system provides.. taking a look 17 what the house would classify as, we did have the home insured with a prior owner Mark 18 Picano under policy 926773075 valued at 478K... then insured bought the house from 19 him. Agent said this policy was written such a 20 long time ago there is no "style code" showing as unknown.” 21 Supporting Evidence: 22 Tucker Decl., Ex. 19 23 72. Hunsaker said that instead of meeting with `25 clients annually for an FFR as instructed to by Farmers’ policies and procedures, he 26 “participated in the post card program wi