Preview
1 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ. State Bar # 196478
JASON DENG, ESQ. State Bar # 336941
2 FORAN GLENNON
3 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95110
4 tfinch@fgppr.com
jdeng@fgppr.com
5 Telephone: (669) 317-4285
6 Facsimile: (312) 863-5099
Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA
9
10 GARY KOOP CASE NO. SCV-266944
11 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S
12 vs. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
13 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE dba FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
14 FARMER INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN
HUNSAKER,
15 Motion Hearing Date: June 28, 2022
Defendants. Time: 3:00 P.M.
16 Dept: 19
17
Action Filed Action Filed: August 24, 2020
18 Amended Complaint filed: January 6, 2021
Trial Date: November 17, 2023
19
20
21
Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 452 and/or 453, Defendant BRIAN
22
HUNSAKER (hereinafter as “Defendant Hunsaker”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial
23
notice of the following Court’s Register of Actions, Pleadings, and the Court ruling.
24
1. The Court’s Register of Action (Public) to date of the above-referenced matter.
25
2. Plaintiff GARY KOOP’S (hereinafter as “Plaintiff”) operative First Amended Complaint.
26
3. Defendant Hunsaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary
27
Adjudication for Causes of Action for Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Negligence against Plaintiff.
28
///
-1-
DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
1 4. The Court’s Ruling denying Defendant Hunsaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the
2 Alternative, Summary Adjudication for Causes of Action for Fraud, Misrepresentation, and
3 Negligence against Plaintiff in all aspects on or about October 27, 2022.
4 5. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication against Defendant
5 Hunsaker and the Notice of Errata re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against
6 Defendant Brian Hunsaker.
7
8 Dated: June 14, 2023 FORAN GLENNON
9
10
11
____ ______ _________________
12 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ.
JASON DENG, ESQ.
13 Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
EXHIBIT 1
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
12/28/2020 Stipulation & Order for:
Comment
to Permit Plaintiff to File First Amended Complaint
01/06/2021 Amended Complaint
01/06/2021 Summons Issued
Comment
Amended
01/06/2021 Proof of Service - 30 Days Summons and Complaint
Requested By
Koop, Gary
Unserved
Served
01/11/2021
01/07/2021 Case Management Conference
Judicial Officer
Nadler, Gary
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Result
Held and Continued
01/20/2021 Proof of Service of Process
Comment
Personal
02/09/2021 Answer
02/25/2021 Answer
03/24/2021 Case Management Statement
03/30/2021 Case Management Statement
03/30/2021 Case Management Statement
04/15/2021 Case Management Conference
Original Type
Case Management Conference
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 3/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Judicial Officer
Nadler, Gary
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Result
Held
05/20/2021 Notice of Settlement Conference and Trial
Comment
No settlement conference set/ordered
07/20/2021 Stipulation & Order
Comment
Protective Order- Confidential Designation Only
10/04/2021 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
10/04/2021 Declaration in Support
10/04/2021 Declaration in Support
10/04/2021 Exhibits List
10/04/2021 Request for Judicial Notice
10/04/2021 Separate Statement
10/04/2021 Order After Hearing
10/08/2021 Notice of Hearing
12/17/2021 Amended
Comment
Separate Statement
12/21/2021 Request for Judicial Notice
Comment
in support of MSJ
12/21/2021 Separate Statement
Comment
in support of MSJ
12/21/2021 Memo of P&A in Support
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 4/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
in support of MSJ
12/21/2021 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Brian Hunsaker in support of MSJ
12/21/2021 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Albert M.T. Finch III in support of MSJ
12/21/2021 Exhibits List
Comment
Compendium of Evidence in support of MSJ
12/21/2021 Proof of Service of Motion/OSC
12/21/2021 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
01/12/2022 Memorandum of P&A's in Opposition
Comment
Plf Opposition To Def FIRE MSJ
01/12/2022 Response
Comment
Plf Resp In Oppo to Separate Stmt
01/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition
Comment
S. Tucker Dec ISO Opposition to Def MSJ
01/12/2022 Response
Comment
Plf Resp In Oppo to Separate Stmt
01/12/2022 Request for Judicial Notice
01/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition
Comment
G. Koop Dec ISO Opposition to Def FIRE MJS
01/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 5/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
S. Tucker Dec ISO Opposition to Def MSJ REDACTED
01/12/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 1
01/14/2022 Proof of Service of Motion/OSC
Comment
Notice of Hearing of MSJ
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 part 1 - public
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 Part 2 - public
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 part 3 - public
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 1 - public
01/18/2022 Exhibit Li t
Comment
Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 2 - public
01/18/2022 Exhibit Li t
Comment
Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 3 - public
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 part 1 - CONFIDENTIAL
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 6/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 Part 2 - CONFIDENTIAL
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 part 3 - CONFIDENTIAL
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 1 - CONFIDENTIAL
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 2 - CONFIDENTIAL
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 3 - CONFIDENTIAL
01/18/2022 Exhibits List
Comment
Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 4 - CONFIDENTIAL
01/18/2022 Declaration in Support
Comment
S. Tucker Dec ISO Opposition to Def MSJ - CONFIDENTIAL
01/21/2022 Reply Memo of P&A in Support
Comment
in support of MSJ
01/21/2022 Objection to Evidence
01/21/2022 Declaration re:
01/21/2022 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Carolyn Spencer in Support Of Application to Withdraw Filing
01/24/2022 Motion
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 7/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
to permanently seal records
01/24/2022 Request for Judicial Notice
01/24/2022 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Steven R. Inouye in support of motion to seal
01/26/2022 Summary Judgment A
Judicial Officer
Nadler, Gary
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Result
Held
01/26/2022 Matter is taken under submission.
Comment
Issue:
01/31/2022 Stipulation
Comment
AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TRIAL DATES AND ORDER
01/31/2022 Notice of Settlement Conference and Trial
Comment
**AMENDED** TRIAL ONLY
02/01/2022 Order
Comment
and Notice of Application to Withdraw Unredacted Filing and Submit Correct Redacted Filing
02/02/2022 Ruling Issued on Submitted Matter
Comment
1/26/22 motions denied
03/08/2022 Declaration in Support
Comment
Dec. of Carolyn Spencer; Per Order of 2/1/22 Exhibit 1 to replace Plaintiff Gary Koop's Opposition to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed 1/12/22
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 8/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
04/27/2022 Stipulation
Comment
TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND ORDER
05/11/2022 Motion
Judicial Officer
Superior Court, Judicial Officer
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Result
Held
Comment
to Permanently Seal record
08/03/2022 Notice of Settlement Conference and Trial
Comment
**AMENDED**
08/03/2022 Stipulation
Comment
TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE
ALTERANATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUCIATION HEARING DATE, AND ORDER
08/12/2022 Notice of Entry of Order/Ruling
Comment
- stip to continue trial date and motion for summary judgment
10/12/2022 Memorandum of P&A's in Opposition
Comment
Redacted
10/12/2022 Response
Comment
Redacted response to MSJ
10/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition
Comment
Declaration of Gary Koop in support of opposition to MSJ
10/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 9/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
Declaration of Kenneth Bunger in support of opposition to MSJ
10/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition
Comment
Redacted declaration of Stacy Tucker in support of opposition
10/12/2022 Filed Document
Comment
Unredacted evidence in support of opposition to MSJ
10/12/2022 Request for Judicial Notice
Comment
to opposition to MSJ
10/12/2022 Notice
Comment
NOTICE OF LODGING CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
10/21/2022 Reply Memo of P&A in Support
Comment
Redacted reply in support of MSJ
10/21/2022 Objections to Evidence
Comment
Redacted objection to evidence in support
10/21/2022 Separate Statement
Comment
Redacted reply to plaintiffs response in opposition
10/21/2022 Proof of Service of Motion/OSC
Comment
Proof of Service of Motion/OSC
10/21/2022 Notice
Comment
Notice of lodging confidential records
10/21/2022 Reply Memo of P&A in Support
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 10/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
Unredacted reply in support of MSJ
10/21/2022 Separate Statement
Comment
Brian Hunsakers unredacted reply to plaintiffs response in opposition to separate statement of material
facts
10/21/2022 Objections to Evidence
Comment
Brian Hunsaker's unredacted objections to evidence in support of opposition
10/21/2022 Proof of Service of Motion/OSC
Comment
Proof of Service
10/24/2022 Declaration re
Comment
Declaration of compliance to local rule 5.4 to MSJ
10/26/2022 Summary Judgment A
Judicial Officer
Barry, William
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Result
Held
10/26/2022 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Comment
Against Fire Insurance Exchange
10/26/2022 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Gary Koop
10/26/2022 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Ken Bunger
10/26/2022 Notice
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 11/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
Evidence in Support
10/26/2022 Separate Statement
10/26/2022 Request for Judicial Notice
10/26/2022 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Comment
Against Brian Hunsaker
10/26/2022 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Ken Bunger
10/26/2022 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Gary Koop
10/26/2022 Request for Judicial Notice
10/26/2022 Notice
Comment
Evidence in Support
10/26/2022 Separate Statement
Comment
Brian
10/27/2022 Ruling Issued on Submitted Matter
Comment
(10/26 MSJ/MSA denied)
10/27/2022 Matter is taken under submission.
Comment
Issue: Ruling re MSJ
10/27/2022 Order
Judicial Officer Comment
Barry, William Re: Brian Hunsakers Unredacted objection to evidence in support of
opposition
10/28/2022 Notice
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 12/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
of Lodging Confidential Documents
10/28/2022 Notice
Comment
of Lodging Confidential Documents
11/23/2022 Notice of Reassignment
12/22/2022 Stipulation & Order
Comment
TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE; AND ORDER
12/22/2022 Notice of
Comment
TRIAL **SECOND AMENDED**
02/14/2023 Letter Confirming Hearing Dropped From Calendar
Comment
3/29 MSJ dropped
03/06/2023 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Comment
as to Fire Insurance Exchange
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Ken Bunger in Support of MSJ
03/06/2023 Filed Document
Comment
Evidence in support of MSJ
03/06/2023 Request for Judicial Notice
Comment
in support of MSJ
03/06/2023 Separate Statement
Comment
in support of MSJ
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 13/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/06/2023 Declaration in Support
03/07/2023 Notice of
Comment
Lodging Confidential Documents
03/10/2023 Letter Confirming Hearing Dropped From Calendar
Comment
Email recieved confirming drop
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Part 9
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Part 11
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 14/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
part 13
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Part 12
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
part seven
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
part six
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
part five
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Part eight
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
part ten
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Part Two
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Part Three
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Part Four
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 15/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Part One
03/10/2023 Request for Judicial Notice
Comment
in support of MSJ
03/10/2023 Notice
Comment
Evidence in support of MSJ
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Ken Bunger in support of MSJ
03/10/2023 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Comment
as to Brian Hunsaker
03/10/2023 Separate Statement
Comment
Redacted plaintifss separate statement of undisputed facts
03/10/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
REDACTED DECLARATION OF STACY TUCKER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST BRIAN HUNSAKER (Declarations)
03/15/2023 Notice
Comment
NOTICE OF LODGING CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (not attached) re MSJ as to Brian Hunsaker
03/16/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Decl. of Stacy Tucker re MSJ as to Fire Insurance Exchange
03/16/2023 Notice
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 16/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
Errata re Decl. of Stacy Tucker re MSJ as to Fire Insurance Exchange
03/23/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
Declaration of Stacy Monahan Tucker in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Document
Production and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production
03/23/2023 Motion to Compel Responses to
Comment
to Compel Further Document Production and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for
Production
03/23/2023 Request for Judicial Notice
Comment
in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses
03/23/2023 Separate Statement
Comment
Separate Statement in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Document Production
03/29/2023 Summary Adjudication_____A
Judicial Officer
Pardo, Oscar A
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Cancel Reason
Dropped
Comment
Against Fire Insurance Exchange
03/29/2023 Declaration in Support
Comment
in support of MSJ of Brian Hunsaker
04/05/2023 Summary Adjudication_____A
Judicial Officer
Pardo, Oscar A
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Cancel Reason
Dropped by Request of Moving Party
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 17/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Comment
Against Brian Hunsaker
04/06/2023 Notice of
Comment
TRIAL **THIRD AMENDED**
04/06/2023 Stipulation & Order
Comment
to continue trial date: Copy emailed to submitting party
04/19/2023 Notice of Informal Conference & Sanctions
04/19/2023 Notice of Informal Conference & Sanctions
05/11/2023 Stipulation & Order
Comment
TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND/OR SUMMUARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE
(from 6/23 to 6/28)
05/19/2023 Opposition
Comment
to Motion to Compel Further Document Production
05/19/2023 Separate Statement
Comment
in Opposition
05/19/2023 Declaration in Opposition
Comment
Declaration of Steven R Inouye
05/25/2023 Declaration Re Meet & Confer
Comment
Declaration of Stacy Monahan Tucker
05/25/2023 Reply Declaration
Comment
Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Further Document Production and Responses to Plaintiffs
Second Set of Requests for Production and Motion to Strike Improper Separate Statement
06/02/2023 Motion to Compel
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 18/20
6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details
Judicial Officer
Pardo, Oscar A
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Result
Held
Comment
Further document production & responses to second set
06/02/2023 Party appeared by audio and/or video
06/09/2023 Memorandum of P&A's in Opposition
Comment
to Gary Koop's MSJ
06/09/2023 Objections to Evidence
Comment
Firesides Insurance objections to GK MSJ
06/09/2023 Request for Judicial Notice
Comment
in support of Fire Insurance opposition to MSJ
06/09/2023 Request for Judicial Notice
Comment
SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGES
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION (Requests)
06/09/2023 Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Opposition
Comment
to MSJ
06/28/2023 Summary Judgment_____A
Judicial Officer
Pardo, Oscar A
Hearing Time
3:00 PM
Comment
as to Fire Insurance Exchange
06/28/2023 Summary Judgment_____A
https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 19/20
EXHIBIT 2
1 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
2 Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendant Farmers is a corporation
3 incorporated in Nevada with its headquarters and principal place of business in Los Angeles
4 County, California. Defendant is authorized to transact and is transacting business in Sonoma
5 County, California.
6 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Hunsaker is an individual insurance
7 agent, working as an independent contractor of Farmers, living in Sonoma County, California and
8 with his insurance agency located in Sonoma County, California.
9 3. At the time of the purchase of the insurance policy which is the subject of this
10 action and at all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Gary Koop was a resident and citizen of the
11 County of Sonoma, State of California.
12 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth
herein.
5. Plaintiff purchased his home in Santa Rosa, California in 2006 and obtained
insurance for it through Farn1ers. His original Homeowners/Fire Insurance coverage pursuant to
17 Farmers NextGeneration Homeowners Policy Number 0926772987 (hereinafter the "Policy")
18 insured his dwelling, in 2006, for $495,000.
19 6. Plaintiff's Policy was renewed annually, in September of each year. After the
20 Rocky Wildfire in July 2015, Plaintiff contacted his insurance agent, Defendant Brian Hunsaker, a
21 Farmers agent, to inquire if his Policy provided adequate insurance for a rebuild in the event of a
22 wildfire and to ask to adjust his limits if necessary to ensure replacement coverage. Hunsaker's
23 office staff assured Plaintiff that he was amply insured in the event of a disaster that required a
24 complete rebuild. Liz Evans, an office employee at Hunsaker's agency, voluntarily emailed to
25 Plaintiff on September 1, 2015 a Reconstruction Cost Estimate created by Farmers that same day.
26 The Reconstruction Cost Estimate was created by 360Value Replacement Cost Valuation, per the
27 document, and was prepared by "Farmers Conversions." The estimate specifically stated that
28 Plaintiffs home was built in 1976, was 2967 square feet, was "above average" quality, the
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 bathrooms were marble, the kitchen cabinets were glass, the counters were granite, the living room
2 had cathedral ceilings and a spiral metal staircase. That document informed Plaintiff that it would
3 cost him $502,000 to rebuild his home. It stated on the first page that the estimated construction
4 cost to rebuild Plaintiffs home was $169.19 per square foot. Plaintiff reasonably relied on
5 Farmers' assurances that he was fully insured for a rebuild.
6 7. Plaintiff continued to be insured by Farmers. Between 2015 and 2017 a series of
7 wildfires repeatedly devastated the Sonoma county area, causing massive labor and materials
8 shortages for rebuilding and dramatically increasing the costs for affected families to rebuild.
9 Numerous articles were written about this fact in newspapers. This was not a new problem, similar
10 issues had been noted in southern California after numerous wildfires in the 2007 to 2010
11 timeframe. Then, too, thousands of policyholders learned too late that they were underinsured for
12 the costs to rebuild their homes after wildfires ran up of the costs of construction.
8. To address this, in 2010 the California Insurance Commissioner codified new
regulations relating to replacement cost at California Code of Regulations, title 10, section
2695.183. The insurance lobby fought the new regulations. The California Supreme Court upheld
the regulations in January 2017.
17 9. Subdivision (a) of §2695.183 requires a replacement cost estimate to account for
18 "the expenses that would reasonably be incurred to rebuild the insured structure(s) in its entirety,"
19 which must include "at least" the cost of labor, building materials, and supplies; overhead and
20 profit; the cost of demolition and debris removal; and the cost of permits and architect's plans.
21 (Cal. Code Regs.,§ 2695.183, subd. (a)(l)-(4).) The estimate must also consider "components and
22 features of the insured structure," including 11 specific items relevant to a typical rebuild, such as
23 the type of foundation and framing, the roofing and siding materials, the square footage and
24 number of stories, and the structure's geographic location. (Id., subd. (a)(5)(A)-(K).)
25 10. Per §2695.183, at least annually, the insurer must "take reasonable steps" to verify
26 that estimate methods are updated to reflect changes in the costs of rebuilding, including changes
27 in the costs oflabor, building materials, and supplies, taking into account a structure's geographic
28 location. (Cal. Code Regs.,§ 2695.183, subd. (e).)
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 1 1. Plaintiff' s Policy was renewed in September 20 1 7, with dwelling coverage of
2 $649,000 . Where Farmers had insured Plaintiff s home for $495,000 in 2006, this was
3 approximately a 25% increase in 1 1 years.
4 12. Just weeks later, in October 20 1 7, In October 20 1 7, Plaintiff s home in Santa Rosa,
5 California was in the path of a large-scale wildfire, the Tubbs Wildfire, which was subsequently
6 denominated a disaster area by the Governor of California. Mr. Koop' s home burned to the
7 ground. Immediately after the loss occurred, Plaintiff made a claim to Farmers and was assigned
8 claim number 3 009622336- 1 - 1 .
9 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that no review o f the cost to replace his home in
10 the event of frre was conducted by Defendant prior to the renewal. No one at Farmers contacted
11 Plaintiff for information about his home or property prior to the renewal, or provided an updated
12 estimate of the cost to rebuild the home.
14. At no time prior to the frre did any Farmers agent visit Plaintiff s home, or ask
Plaintiff questions about the structure or the property prior to issuing him coverage.
15. Because of the lack o f information on which Farmers based its valuation of the cost
to rebuild his home, combined with the lack of increased coverage over the years, Plaintiff has not
17 been paid enough to rebuild.
18 1 6. Plaintiff provided all information available to him to substantiate his loss and
19 Farmers made partial payments o n his claim.
20 1 7. During the investigation of his claim, Plaintiff learned that the cost of rebuilding
21 his home had been severely underestimated by Farmer' s during the underwriting process. Further,
22 the code upgrades routinely increased by code changes over the years had not been increased,
23 despite the fact that Plaintiff s home was built in 1 976 and would require extensive upgrades to
24 meet present-day codes. Nor did the estimated cost of a rebuild take into consideration the
25 enormous increase in building costs in the area after years of devastating wildfrres.
26 1 8. Farmers paid the underinsured dwelling limits in 20 1 7 and purported to close
27 Plaintiff s claim in 20 1 8 , though it continued to pay the Additional Living Expenses Plaintiff was
28 owed under the Policy. However, because of the enormous increase in construction demand due
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 to the years of wildfires in the area, Plaintiff was not able to obtaii, even an estimate to rebuild his
2 home until June 20 1 9. Plaintiff' s contractor estimated it would cost in excess of $2.7 million to
3 rebuild his home, including all required code upgrades . Plaintiff immediately forwarded this
4 information to Farmers. Between June and September 20 1 9, Plaintiff asked Farmers to adjust his
5 insurance to the replacement coverage he had requested, and been assured by Farmers he had, in
6 20 1 5 . In September 20 1 9, Farmers formally declined to provide Plaintiff the coverage to which he
7 was entitled. In October 20 1 9, Plaintiff asked in writing for a copy of the Policy and the
8 documents on which Fam1ers relied in adjusting his claim. Fam1ers provided the Policy but
9 refused to provide claim documents, despite being legally required to provide them within 1 5 days
10 upon request pursuant to California Insurance Code §207 1 .
11 1 9. In July 2020, Plaintiff formally asked Farmers to reform the Policy to provide the
12 replacement coverage h e had requested. Farmers declined.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAfNST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth
17 herein.
18 21. Plaintiff sought to obtain replacement insurance coverage for his home through
19 Farmers in the event of a fire. In September 201 5, he specifically contacted Farmers and asked if
20 he needed to increase his coverage to have fuli replacement coverage, and Farmers assured him he
21 did not. Even if Fanners had previously not understood that Plaintiff intended to obtain full
22 replacement coverage, it was on notice after the September 20 1 5 exchange where Plainti ff
23 specifically requested it and was assured he bad it.
24 22 . Plaintiff is informed and believes that Farmers took no steps to incorporate into his
25 insurance coverage the increases in the costs of rebuilding after the multiple years of wildfires in
26 Northern California area, even after he called and asked Farmers specifically if he had adequate
27 insurance to rebuild and they assured him he did.
28
5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 23 . As a direct and proximate result of Farmer' s improper determination regarding
2 Plaintiff' s coverage, Plaintiff has been deprived of the right to obtain the benefits to which he is
3 entitled under the Policy.
4 24. Plaintiff asked Farmers to refonn his Policy to accurately reflect the replacement
5 cost of his home, and Farmers declined.
6 25. All premiums due to maintain Plaintiff s coverage i n full force and effect under the
7 Policy have been paid by Plaintiff. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has perfonned all obligations
8 under the Policy on his part to be performed.
9 26. Farmer's conduct constitutes a breach of the insurance contract between Defendant
10 and Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant' s breach of the Policy, Plaintiff has
11 suffered contractual damages under the terms and conditions of the Policy that will continue, plus
12 interest and other incidental damages and out-of-pocket expenses, all in the sum to be detennined
according to proof at the time of trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE
FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
17 FAIR DEALING
18 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth
19 herein.
20 28. Defendant breached its respective duty o f good faith and fair dealing owed to
21 Plaintiff in the following respects:
22 (a) Unreasonably withholding benefits from Plaintiff in bad faith at a time
23 when Defendant knew Plaintiff was entitled to said benefits under the Policy;
24 (b ) Unreasonably and in bad faith failing to provide a prompt and reasonable
25 explanation of the basis relied on under the terms of the Policy, in relation to the applicable
26 facts and Policy provisions, for the failure to fully pay what it should have owed for
27 Plaintiff' s claim for benefits;
28
6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 Unreasonably delaying payments to Plaintiff in bad faith k..nowing
2 Plaintiff's claim for benefits under the Policy was valid;
3 (d) Umeasonably failing to properly investigate Plaintiff' s claim;
4 (e) Intentionally and unreasonably applying pertinent policy provisions to limit
5 Defendant's financial exposure and contractual obligations and to maximize profits;
6 (f) Failing to comply with Cal. Ins. Reg. §2695.183;
7 (g) Declining to implement Plaintiffs request to reform the Policy to reflect the
8 insurance amounts the Policy would have contained if Farmers' had complied with
9 §2695 . 1 83;
10 (h) Refusing to comply with a written request made by Plaintiff for his claims
11 related documents, a request with which Farmers was required to comply within 1 5 days
12 under Cal. Ins. Code. §207 1 ;
and,
(i) Umeasonably compelling Plaintiff to institute litigation to recover amounts
due under the Policy to further discourage Plaintiff from pursuing his full policy benefits.
29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that Defendant has breached
17 its duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff by other acts or omissions of which
18 Plaintiff is presently unaware. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint at such time as Plaintiff
19 discovers these other acts or omissions.
20 30.Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Farmers has a pattern and practice of
21 underinsuring homes to increase its competitiveness in the insurance market by offering lower
22 premiums, and then avoiding higher rebuild obligations in the event of a disaster, leaving its
23 insureds unable to replace their homes.
24 31 . As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered
25 and will continue to suffer in the future, damages under the Policy, plus interest, for a total amount
26 to be shown at the time of trial.
27
28
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 32. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has
2 suffered mental and emotional distress, and other incidental damages and out-of-pocket expenses,
3 all to Plaintiffs general damage in a sum to be determined at the time of trial.
4 33. A s a further proximate result o f the wrongful conduct o f Defendant, Plaintiff was
5 compelled to retain legal counsel to obtain the benefits due under the Policy. Therefore, Defendant
6 is liable to Plaintiff for those attorneys' fees reasonably necessary and incurred by Plaintiff to
7 obtain Policy benefits in a sum to be determined at the time of trial.
8 34. Defendant's conduct described herein was intended by Defendant to cause injury to
9 Plaintiff, was despicable conduct carried on by Defendant with a willful and conscious disregard
10 of the rights of Plaintiff, subj ected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of
11 their rights, and was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact
12 known to Defendant with the intention to deprive Plaintiff of property and/or legal rights or to
otherwise cause injury, such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil
Code § 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or
set an example of Defendant.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17 AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE
18 FOR REFORMATION
19 35. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
20 36. Defendant Farmers knew or should have known at the time the Policy was issued
21 that the Policy was intended to insure Plaintiff for the full value o f replacement o f the property as
22 it existed at the time.
23 37. The Policy as drafted was not based on accurate information, resulting in an
24 inaccurate estimate of costs to rebuild, and was thus materially different from the intended purpose
25 of the Policy.
26 38. This material difference was the result of fraud, mutual mistake, or inequitable
27 conduct, and thus Plaintiff is entitled to reformation of the Policy to reflect that he is and has been
28
8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1 properly insured at all relevant ti.mes u..11.der the Policy and is entitled to benefits under the Policy.
2 See Cal. Civ. Code § § 3399, 340 1 .
3 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4 AGAINST DEFENDANTS FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND BRIAN
5 HUNSAKERFOR FRAUD
6 39 . All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
7 40. In the Policy, Plaintiff' s home is listed as being built in 1 976. Plaintiff first obtained
8 his Policy from Farmers in 2006, when he bought his custom home. The home was 2,967 square
9 feet.
10 41. When Plaintiff obtained the Policy in 2006, he requested replacement coverage for
11 his home. His insurance agent Brian Hunsaker informed him that the Policy provided replacement
12 coverage. Plaintiff reasonably understood that to mean that, in the event of the destruction of his
home, his insurance would fully cover the costs to replace his home with a new home that
Preview
1 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ. State Bar # 196478 JASON DENG, ESQ. State Bar # 336941 2 FORAN GLENNON 3 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95110 4 tfinch@fgppr.com jdeng@fgppr.com 5 Telephone: (669) 317-4285 6 Facsimile: (312) 863-5099 Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SONOMA 9 10 GARY KOOP CASE NO. SCV-266944 11 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S 12 vs. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE dba FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 14 FARMER INSURANCE GROUP; BRIAN HUNSAKER, 15 Motion Hearing Date: June 28, 2022 Defendants. Time: 3:00 P.M. 16 Dept: 19 17 Action Filed Action Filed: August 24, 2020 18 Amended Complaint filed: January 6, 2021 Trial Date: November 17, 2023 19 20 21 Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 452 and/or 453, Defendant BRIAN 22 HUNSAKER (hereinafter as “Defendant Hunsaker”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial 23 notice of the following Court’s Register of Actions, Pleadings, and the Court ruling. 24 1. The Court’s Register of Action (Public) to date of the above-referenced matter. 25 2. Plaintiff GARY KOOP’S (hereinafter as “Plaintiff”) operative First Amended Complaint. 26 3. Defendant Hunsaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary 27 Adjudication for Causes of Action for Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Negligence against Plaintiff. 28 /// -1- DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 4. The Court’s Ruling denying Defendant Hunsaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the 2 Alternative, Summary Adjudication for Causes of Action for Fraud, Misrepresentation, and 3 Negligence against Plaintiff in all aspects on or about October 27, 2022. 4 5. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Adjudication against Defendant 5 Hunsaker and the Notice of Errata re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication against 6 Defendant Brian Hunsaker. 7 8 Dated: June 14, 2023 FORAN GLENNON 9 10 11 ____ ______ _________________ 12 ALBERT M. T. FINCH, III, ESQ. JASON DENG, ESQ. 13 Attorneys for Defendant BRIAN HUNSAKER 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION EXHIBIT 1 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details 12/28/2020 Stipulation & Order for: Comment to Permit Plaintiff to File First Amended Complaint 01/06/2021 Amended Complaint 01/06/2021 Summons Issued Comment Amended 01/06/2021 Proof of Service - 30 Days Summons and Complaint Requested By Koop, Gary Unserved Served 01/11/2021 01/07/2021 Case Management Conference Judicial Officer Nadler, Gary Hearing Time 3:00 PM Result Held and Continued 01/20/2021 Proof of Service of Process Comment Personal 02/09/2021 Answer 02/25/2021 Answer 03/24/2021 Case Management Statement 03/30/2021 Case Management Statement 03/30/2021 Case Management Statement 04/15/2021 Case Management Conference Original Type Case Management Conference https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 3/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Judicial Officer Nadler, Gary Hearing Time 3:00 PM Result Held 05/20/2021 Notice of Settlement Conference and Trial Comment No settlement conference set/ordered 07/20/2021 Stipulation & Order Comment Protective Order- Confidential Designation Only 10/04/2021 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication 10/04/2021 Declaration in Support 10/04/2021 Declaration in Support 10/04/2021 Exhibits List 10/04/2021 Request for Judicial Notice 10/04/2021 Separate Statement 10/04/2021 Order After Hearing 10/08/2021 Notice of Hearing 12/17/2021 Amended Comment Separate Statement 12/21/2021 Request for Judicial Notice Comment in support of MSJ 12/21/2021 Separate Statement Comment in support of MSJ 12/21/2021 Memo of P&A in Support https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 4/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment in support of MSJ 12/21/2021 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Brian Hunsaker in support of MSJ 12/21/2021 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Albert M.T. Finch III in support of MSJ 12/21/2021 Exhibits List Comment Compendium of Evidence in support of MSJ 12/21/2021 Proof of Service of Motion/OSC 12/21/2021 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication 01/12/2022 Memorandum of P&A's in Opposition Comment Plf Opposition To Def FIRE MSJ 01/12/2022 Response Comment Plf Resp In Oppo to Separate Stmt 01/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition Comment S. Tucker Dec ISO Opposition to Def MSJ 01/12/2022 Response Comment Plf Resp In Oppo to Separate Stmt 01/12/2022 Request for Judicial Notice 01/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition Comment G. Koop Dec ISO Opposition to Def FIRE MJS 01/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 5/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment S. Tucker Dec ISO Opposition to Def MSJ REDACTED 01/12/2022 Exhibits List Comment Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 1 01/14/2022 Proof of Service of Motion/OSC Comment Notice of Hearing of MSJ 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 part 1 - public 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 Part 2 - public 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 part 3 - public 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 1 - public 01/18/2022 Exhibit Li t Comment Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 2 - public 01/18/2022 Exhibit Li t Comment Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 3 - public 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 part 1 - CONFIDENTIAL 01/18/2022 Exhibits List https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 6/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 Part 2 - CONFIDENTIAL 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment S. Tucker Exhibits 1-23 part 3 - CONFIDENTIAL 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 1 - CONFIDENTIAL 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 2 - CONFIDENTIAL 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 3 - CONFIDENTIAL 01/18/2022 Exhibits List Comment Evidence ISO Oppo to Def FIRE MSJ Part 4 - CONFIDENTIAL 01/18/2022 Declaration in Support Comment S. Tucker Dec ISO Opposition to Def MSJ - CONFIDENTIAL 01/21/2022 Reply Memo of P&A in Support Comment in support of MSJ 01/21/2022 Objection to Evidence 01/21/2022 Declaration re: 01/21/2022 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Carolyn Spencer in Support Of Application to Withdraw Filing 01/24/2022 Motion https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 7/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment to permanently seal records 01/24/2022 Request for Judicial Notice 01/24/2022 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Steven R. Inouye in support of motion to seal 01/26/2022 Summary Judgment A Judicial Officer Nadler, Gary Hearing Time 3:00 PM Result Held 01/26/2022 Matter is taken under submission. Comment Issue: 01/31/2022 Stipulation Comment AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND TRIAL DATES AND ORDER 01/31/2022 Notice of Settlement Conference and Trial Comment **AMENDED** TRIAL ONLY 02/01/2022 Order Comment and Notice of Application to Withdraw Unredacted Filing and Submit Correct Redacted Filing 02/02/2022 Ruling Issued on Submitted Matter Comment 1/26/22 motions denied 03/08/2022 Declaration in Support Comment Dec. of Carolyn Spencer; Per Order of 2/1/22 Exhibit 1 to replace Plaintiff Gary Koop's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed 1/12/22 https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 8/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details 04/27/2022 Stipulation Comment TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANT BRIAN HUNSAKER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND ORDER 05/11/2022 Motion Judicial Officer Superior Court, Judicial Officer Hearing Time 3:00 PM Result Held Comment to Permanently Seal record 08/03/2022 Notice of Settlement Conference and Trial Comment **AMENDED** 08/03/2022 Stipulation Comment TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERANATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUCIATION HEARING DATE, AND ORDER 08/12/2022 Notice of Entry of Order/Ruling Comment - stip to continue trial date and motion for summary judgment 10/12/2022 Memorandum of P&A's in Opposition Comment Redacted 10/12/2022 Response Comment Redacted response to MSJ 10/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition Comment Declaration of Gary Koop in support of opposition to MSJ 10/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 9/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment Declaration of Kenneth Bunger in support of opposition to MSJ 10/12/2022 Declaration in Opposition Comment Redacted declaration of Stacy Tucker in support of opposition 10/12/2022 Filed Document Comment Unredacted evidence in support of opposition to MSJ 10/12/2022 Request for Judicial Notice Comment to opposition to MSJ 10/12/2022 Notice Comment NOTICE OF LODGING CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 10/21/2022 Reply Memo of P&A in Support Comment Redacted reply in support of MSJ 10/21/2022 Objections to Evidence Comment Redacted objection to evidence in support 10/21/2022 Separate Statement Comment Redacted reply to plaintiffs response in opposition 10/21/2022 Proof of Service of Motion/OSC Comment Proof of Service of Motion/OSC 10/21/2022 Notice Comment Notice of lodging confidential records 10/21/2022 Reply Memo of P&A in Support https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 10/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment Unredacted reply in support of MSJ 10/21/2022 Separate Statement Comment Brian Hunsakers unredacted reply to plaintiffs response in opposition to separate statement of material facts 10/21/2022 Objections to Evidence Comment Brian Hunsaker's unredacted objections to evidence in support of opposition 10/21/2022 Proof of Service of Motion/OSC Comment Proof of Service 10/24/2022 Declaration re Comment Declaration of compliance to local rule 5.4 to MSJ 10/26/2022 Summary Judgment A Judicial Officer Barry, William Hearing Time 3:00 PM Result Held 10/26/2022 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Comment Against Fire Insurance Exchange 10/26/2022 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Gary Koop 10/26/2022 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Ken Bunger 10/26/2022 Notice https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 11/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment Evidence in Support 10/26/2022 Separate Statement 10/26/2022 Request for Judicial Notice 10/26/2022 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Comment Against Brian Hunsaker 10/26/2022 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Ken Bunger 10/26/2022 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Gary Koop 10/26/2022 Request for Judicial Notice 10/26/2022 Notice Comment Evidence in Support 10/26/2022 Separate Statement Comment Brian 10/27/2022 Ruling Issued on Submitted Matter Comment (10/26 MSJ/MSA denied) 10/27/2022 Matter is taken under submission. Comment Issue: Ruling re MSJ 10/27/2022 Order Judicial Officer Comment Barry, William Re: Brian Hunsakers Unredacted objection to evidence in support of opposition 10/28/2022 Notice https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 12/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment of Lodging Confidential Documents 10/28/2022 Notice Comment of Lodging Confidential Documents 11/23/2022 Notice of Reassignment 12/22/2022 Stipulation & Order Comment TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE; AND ORDER 12/22/2022 Notice of Comment TRIAL **SECOND AMENDED** 02/14/2023 Letter Confirming Hearing Dropped From Calendar Comment 3/29 MSJ dropped 03/06/2023 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Comment as to Fire Insurance Exchange 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Ken Bunger in Support of MSJ 03/06/2023 Filed Document Comment Evidence in support of MSJ 03/06/2023 Request for Judicial Notice Comment in support of MSJ 03/06/2023 Separate Statement Comment in support of MSJ https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 13/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/06/2023 Declaration in Support 03/07/2023 Notice of Comment Lodging Confidential Documents 03/10/2023 Letter Confirming Hearing Dropped From Calendar Comment Email recieved confirming drop 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Part 9 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Part 11 https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 14/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment part 13 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Part 12 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment part seven 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment part six 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment part five 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Part eight 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment part ten 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Part Two 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Part Three 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Part Four https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 15/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Part One 03/10/2023 Request for Judicial Notice Comment in support of MSJ 03/10/2023 Notice Comment Evidence in support of MSJ 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Ken Bunger in support of MSJ 03/10/2023 Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Comment as to Brian Hunsaker 03/10/2023 Separate Statement Comment Redacted plaintifss separate statement of undisputed facts 03/10/2023 Declaration in Support Comment REDACTED DECLARATION OF STACY TUCKER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND NEGLIGENCE AGAINST BRIAN HUNSAKER (Declarations) 03/15/2023 Notice Comment NOTICE OF LODGING CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (not attached) re MSJ as to Brian Hunsaker 03/16/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Decl. of Stacy Tucker re MSJ as to Fire Insurance Exchange 03/16/2023 Notice https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 16/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment Errata re Decl. of Stacy Tucker re MSJ as to Fire Insurance Exchange 03/23/2023 Declaration in Support Comment Declaration of Stacy Monahan Tucker in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Document Production and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production 03/23/2023 Motion to Compel Responses to Comment to Compel Further Document Production and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production 03/23/2023 Request for Judicial Notice Comment in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses 03/23/2023 Separate Statement Comment Separate Statement in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Document Production 03/29/2023 Summary Adjudication_____A Judicial Officer Pardo, Oscar A Hearing Time 3:00 PM Cancel Reason Dropped Comment Against Fire Insurance Exchange 03/29/2023 Declaration in Support Comment in support of MSJ of Brian Hunsaker 04/05/2023 Summary Adjudication_____A Judicial Officer Pardo, Oscar A Hearing Time 3:00 PM Cancel Reason Dropped by Request of Moving Party https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 17/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Comment Against Brian Hunsaker 04/06/2023 Notice of Comment TRIAL **THIRD AMENDED** 04/06/2023 Stipulation & Order Comment to continue trial date: Copy emailed to submitting party 04/19/2023 Notice of Informal Conference & Sanctions 04/19/2023 Notice of Informal Conference & Sanctions 05/11/2023 Stipulation & Order Comment TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF GARY KOOP'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMUARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE (from 6/23 to 6/28) 05/19/2023 Opposition Comment to Motion to Compel Further Document Production 05/19/2023 Separate Statement Comment in Opposition 05/19/2023 Declaration in Opposition Comment Declaration of Steven R Inouye 05/25/2023 Declaration Re Meet & Confer Comment Declaration of Stacy Monahan Tucker 05/25/2023 Reply Declaration Comment Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Further Document Production and Responses to Plaintiffs Second Set of Requests for Production and Motion to Strike Improper Separate Statement 06/02/2023 Motion to Compel https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 18/20 6/13/23, 11:19 PM Details Judicial Officer Pardo, Oscar A Hearing Time 3:00 PM Result Held Comment Further document production & responses to second set 06/02/2023 Party appeared by audio and/or video 06/09/2023 Memorandum of P&A's in Opposition Comment to Gary Koop's MSJ 06/09/2023 Objections to Evidence Comment Firesides Insurance objections to GK MSJ 06/09/2023 Request for Judicial Notice Comment in support of Fire Insurance opposition to MSJ 06/09/2023 Request for Judicial Notice Comment SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGES OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION (Requests) 06/09/2023 Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Opposition Comment to MSJ 06/28/2023 Summary Judgment_____A Judicial Officer Pardo, Oscar A Hearing Time 3:00 PM Comment as to Fire Insurance Exchange 06/28/2023 Summary Judgment_____A https://cmsportal.sonomacourt.org/IPortal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 19/20 EXHIBIT 2 1 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 2 Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendant Farmers is a corporation 3 incorporated in Nevada with its headquarters and principal place of business in Los Angeles 4 County, California. Defendant is authorized to transact and is transacting business in Sonoma 5 County, California. 6 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Hunsaker is an individual insurance 7 agent, working as an independent contractor of Farmers, living in Sonoma County, California and 8 with his insurance agency located in Sonoma County, California. 9 3. At the time of the purchase of the insurance policy which is the subject of this 10 action and at all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Gary Koop was a resident and citizen of the 11 County of Sonoma, State of California. 12 GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 5. Plaintiff purchased his home in Santa Rosa, California in 2006 and obtained insurance for it through Farn1ers. His original Homeowners/Fire Insurance coverage pursuant to 17 Farmers NextGeneration Homeowners Policy Number 0926772987 (hereinafter the "Policy") 18 insured his dwelling, in 2006, for $495,000. 19 6. Plaintiff's Policy was renewed annually, in September of each year. After the 20 Rocky Wildfire in July 2015, Plaintiff contacted his insurance agent, Defendant Brian Hunsaker, a 21 Farmers agent, to inquire if his Policy provided adequate insurance for a rebuild in the event of a 22 wildfire and to ask to adjust his limits if necessary to ensure replacement coverage. Hunsaker's 23 office staff assured Plaintiff that he was amply insured in the event of a disaster that required a 24 complete rebuild. Liz Evans, an office employee at Hunsaker's agency, voluntarily emailed to 25 Plaintiff on September 1, 2015 a Reconstruction Cost Estimate created by Farmers that same day. 26 The Reconstruction Cost Estimate was created by 360Value Replacement Cost Valuation, per the 27 document, and was prepared by "Farmers Conversions." The estimate specifically stated that 28 Plaintiffs home was built in 1976, was 2967 square feet, was "above average" quality, the 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 bathrooms were marble, the kitchen cabinets were glass, the counters were granite, the living room 2 had cathedral ceilings and a spiral metal staircase. That document informed Plaintiff that it would 3 cost him $502,000 to rebuild his home. It stated on the first page that the estimated construction 4 cost to rebuild Plaintiffs home was $169.19 per square foot. Plaintiff reasonably relied on 5 Farmers' assurances that he was fully insured for a rebuild. 6 7. Plaintiff continued to be insured by Farmers. Between 2015 and 2017 a series of 7 wildfires repeatedly devastated the Sonoma county area, causing massive labor and materials 8 shortages for rebuilding and dramatically increasing the costs for affected families to rebuild. 9 Numerous articles were written about this fact in newspapers. This was not a new problem, similar 10 issues had been noted in southern California after numerous wildfires in the 2007 to 2010 11 timeframe. Then, too, thousands of policyholders learned too late that they were underinsured for 12 the costs to rebuild their homes after wildfires ran up of the costs of construction. 8. To address this, in 2010 the California Insurance Commissioner codified new regulations relating to replacement cost at California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183. The insurance lobby fought the new regulations. The California Supreme Court upheld the regulations in January 2017. 17 9. Subdivision (a) of §2695.183 requires a replacement cost estimate to account for 18 "the expenses that would reasonably be incurred to rebuild the insured structure(s) in its entirety," 19 which must include "at least" the cost of labor, building materials, and supplies; overhead and 20 profit; the cost of demolition and debris removal; and the cost of permits and architect's plans. 21 (Cal. Code Regs.,§ 2695.183, subd. (a)(l)-(4).) The estimate must also consider "components and 22 features of the insured structure," including 11 specific items relevant to a typical rebuild, such as 23 the type of foundation and framing, the roofing and siding materials, the square footage and 24 number of stories, and the structure's geographic location. (Id., subd. (a)(5)(A)-(K).) 25 10. Per §2695.183, at least annually, the insurer must "take reasonable steps" to verify 26 that estimate methods are updated to reflect changes in the costs of rebuilding, including changes 27 in the costs oflabor, building materials, and supplies, taking into account a structure's geographic 28 location. (Cal. Code Regs.,§ 2695.183, subd. (e).) 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 1 1. Plaintiff' s Policy was renewed in September 20 1 7, with dwelling coverage of 2 $649,000 . Where Farmers had insured Plaintiff s home for $495,000 in 2006, this was 3 approximately a 25% increase in 1 1 years. 4 12. Just weeks later, in October 20 1 7, In October 20 1 7, Plaintiff s home in Santa Rosa, 5 California was in the path of a large-scale wildfire, the Tubbs Wildfire, which was subsequently 6 denominated a disaster area by the Governor of California. Mr. Koop' s home burned to the 7 ground. Immediately after the loss occurred, Plaintiff made a claim to Farmers and was assigned 8 claim number 3 009622336- 1 - 1 . 9 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that no review o f the cost to replace his home in 10 the event of frre was conducted by Defendant prior to the renewal. No one at Farmers contacted 11 Plaintiff for information about his home or property prior to the renewal, or provided an updated 12 estimate of the cost to rebuild the home. 14. At no time prior to the frre did any Farmers agent visit Plaintiff s home, or ask Plaintiff questions about the structure or the property prior to issuing him coverage. 15. Because of the lack o f information on which Farmers based its valuation of the cost to rebuild his home, combined with the lack of increased coverage over the years, Plaintiff has not 17 been paid enough to rebuild. 18 1 6. Plaintiff provided all information available to him to substantiate his loss and 19 Farmers made partial payments o n his claim. 20 1 7. During the investigation of his claim, Plaintiff learned that the cost of rebuilding 21 his home had been severely underestimated by Farmer' s during the underwriting process. Further, 22 the code upgrades routinely increased by code changes over the years had not been increased, 23 despite the fact that Plaintiff s home was built in 1 976 and would require extensive upgrades to 24 meet present-day codes. Nor did the estimated cost of a rebuild take into consideration the 25 enormous increase in building costs in the area after years of devastating wildfrres. 26 1 8. Farmers paid the underinsured dwelling limits in 20 1 7 and purported to close 27 Plaintiff s claim in 20 1 8 , though it continued to pay the Additional Living Expenses Plaintiff was 28 owed under the Policy. However, because of the enormous increase in construction demand due 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 to the years of wildfires in the area, Plaintiff was not able to obtaii, even an estimate to rebuild his 2 home until June 20 1 9. Plaintiff' s contractor estimated it would cost in excess of $2.7 million to 3 rebuild his home, including all required code upgrades . Plaintiff immediately forwarded this 4 information to Farmers. Between June and September 20 1 9, Plaintiff asked Farmers to adjust his 5 insurance to the replacement coverage he had requested, and been assured by Farmers he had, in 6 20 1 5 . In September 20 1 9, Farmers formally declined to provide Plaintiff the coverage to which he 7 was entitled. In October 20 1 9, Plaintiff asked in writing for a copy of the Policy and the 8 documents on which Fam1ers relied in adjusting his claim. Fam1ers provided the Policy but 9 refused to provide claim documents, despite being legally required to provide them within 1 5 days 10 upon request pursuant to California Insurance Code §207 1 . 11 1 9. In July 2020, Plaintiff formally asked Farmers to reform the Policy to provide the 12 replacement coverage h e had requested. Farmers declined. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAfNST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 20. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 17 herein. 18 21. Plaintiff sought to obtain replacement insurance coverage for his home through 19 Farmers in the event of a fire. In September 201 5, he specifically contacted Farmers and asked if 20 he needed to increase his coverage to have fuli replacement coverage, and Farmers assured him he 21 did not. Even if Fanners had previously not understood that Plaintiff intended to obtain full 22 replacement coverage, it was on notice after the September 20 1 5 exchange where Plainti ff 23 specifically requested it and was assured he bad it. 24 22 . Plaintiff is informed and believes that Farmers took no steps to incorporate into his 25 insurance coverage the increases in the costs of rebuilding after the multiple years of wildfires in 26 Northern California area, even after he called and asked Farmers specifically if he had adequate 27 insurance to rebuild and they assured him he did. 28 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 23 . As a direct and proximate result of Farmer' s improper determination regarding 2 Plaintiff' s coverage, Plaintiff has been deprived of the right to obtain the benefits to which he is 3 entitled under the Policy. 4 24. Plaintiff asked Farmers to refonn his Policy to accurately reflect the replacement 5 cost of his home, and Farmers declined. 6 25. All premiums due to maintain Plaintiff s coverage i n full force and effect under the 7 Policy have been paid by Plaintiff. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has perfonned all obligations 8 under the Policy on his part to be performed. 9 26. Farmer's conduct constitutes a breach of the insurance contract between Defendant 10 and Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant' s breach of the Policy, Plaintiff has 11 suffered contractual damages under the terms and conditions of the Policy that will continue, plus 12 interest and other incidental damages and out-of-pocket expenses, all in the sum to be detennined according to proof at the time of trial. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND 17 FAIR DEALING 18 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth 19 herein. 20 28. Defendant breached its respective duty o f good faith and fair dealing owed to 21 Plaintiff in the following respects: 22 (a) Unreasonably withholding benefits from Plaintiff in bad faith at a time 23 when Defendant knew Plaintiff was entitled to said benefits under the Policy; 24 (b ) Unreasonably and in bad faith failing to provide a prompt and reasonable 25 explanation of the basis relied on under the terms of the Policy, in relation to the applicable 26 facts and Policy provisions, for the failure to fully pay what it should have owed for 27 Plaintiff' s claim for benefits; 28 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Unreasonably delaying payments to Plaintiff in bad faith k..nowing 2 Plaintiff's claim for benefits under the Policy was valid; 3 (d) Umeasonably failing to properly investigate Plaintiff' s claim; 4 (e) Intentionally and unreasonably applying pertinent policy provisions to limit 5 Defendant's financial exposure and contractual obligations and to maximize profits; 6 (f) Failing to comply with Cal. Ins. Reg. §2695.183; 7 (g) Declining to implement Plaintiffs request to reform the Policy to reflect the 8 insurance amounts the Policy would have contained if Farmers' had complied with 9 §2695 . 1 83; 10 (h) Refusing to comply with a written request made by Plaintiff for his claims 11 related documents, a request with which Farmers was required to comply within 1 5 days 12 under Cal. Ins. Code. §207 1 ; and, (i) Umeasonably compelling Plaintiff to institute litigation to recover amounts due under the Policy to further discourage Plaintiff from pursuing his full policy benefits. 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that Defendant has breached 17 its duties of good faith and fair dealing owed to Plaintiff by other acts or omissions of which 18 Plaintiff is presently unaware. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint at such time as Plaintiff 19 discovers these other acts or omissions. 20 30.Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Farmers has a pattern and practice of 21 underinsuring homes to increase its competitiveness in the insurance market by offering lower 22 premiums, and then avoiding higher rebuild obligations in the event of a disaster, leaving its 23 insureds unable to replace their homes. 24 31 . As a proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered 25 and will continue to suffer in the future, damages under the Policy, plus interest, for a total amount 26 to be shown at the time of trial. 27 28 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 32. As a further proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has 2 suffered mental and emotional distress, and other incidental damages and out-of-pocket expenses, 3 all to Plaintiffs general damage in a sum to be determined at the time of trial. 4 33. A s a further proximate result o f the wrongful conduct o f Defendant, Plaintiff was 5 compelled to retain legal counsel to obtain the benefits due under the Policy. Therefore, Defendant 6 is liable to Plaintiff for those attorneys' fees reasonably necessary and incurred by Plaintiff to 7 obtain Policy benefits in a sum to be determined at the time of trial. 8 34. Defendant's conduct described herein was intended by Defendant to cause injury to 9 Plaintiff, was despicable conduct carried on by Defendant with a willful and conscious disregard 10 of the rights of Plaintiff, subj ected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of 11 their rights, and was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact 12 known to Defendant with the intention to deprive Plaintiff of property and/or legal rights or to otherwise cause injury, such as to constitute malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil Code § 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendant. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 17 AGAINST DEFENDANT FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE 18 FOR REFORMATION 19 35. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 20 36. Defendant Farmers knew or should have known at the time the Policy was issued 21 that the Policy was intended to insure Plaintiff for the full value o f replacement o f the property as 22 it existed at the time. 23 37. The Policy as drafted was not based on accurate information, resulting in an 24 inaccurate estimate of costs to rebuild, and was thus materially different from the intended purpose 25 of the Policy. 26 38. This material difference was the result of fraud, mutual mistake, or inequitable 27 conduct, and thus Plaintiff is entitled to reformation of the Policy to reflect that he is and has been 28 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 properly insured at all relevant ti.mes u..11.der the Policy and is entitled to benefits under the Policy. 2 See Cal. Civ. Code § § 3399, 340 1 . 3 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 4 AGAINST DEFENDANTS FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND BRIAN 5 HUNSAKERFOR FRAUD 6 39 . All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 7 40. In the Policy, Plaintiff' s home is listed as being built in 1 976. Plaintiff first obtained 8 his Policy from Farmers in 2006, when he bought his custom home. The home was 2,967 square 9 feet. 10 41. When Plaintiff obtained the Policy in 2006, he requested replacement coverage for 11 his home. His insurance agent Brian Hunsaker informed him that the Policy provided replacement 12 coverage. Plaintiff reasonably understood that to mean that, in the event of the destruction of his home, his insurance would fully cover the costs to replace his home with a new home that