Preview
1 Elisabeth E. Martini (SBN 301701)
Email: emartini@rlattorneys.com
2 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
3 9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
4 Telephone/Facsimile: (714) 709-4400
5
Attorney for Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and
6 Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
9
10
R. LAWRENCE BACON AND SHARON Case No.: 24CV00790
11 BACON,
12 Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF
13 REMOVAL
v.
14 Complaint Filed: March 19, 2024
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY;
Trial Date: None
15 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1
16 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
17 Defendants.
18
19 Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance
20 Company by and through undersigned counsel, files this Notice of Filing Notice of Removal of the
21 above captioned matter in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A
22 copy of the Notice of Removal and all attachments thereto are attached to this Notice as Exhibit 1
23 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of April, 2024.
24 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
25
26 Elisabeth E. Martini, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant ALLSTATE
27 INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO.
28
1
CAPTION
Exhibit 1
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 4
1 Elisabeth E. Martini, SBN 301701
RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
2 9891 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 200
3 Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (714) 709-4400
4
Facsimile: (714) 709-4400
5 Email: emartini@rlattorneys.com;
6
Attorneys for Defendant ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE
7 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
R. LAWRENCE BACON AND SHARON CASE NO.: 5:24-cv-02363-SVK
BACON,
14 Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
15 v. REMOVAL OF ACTION TO
16
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28
17 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND U.S.C. SECTION 1441 (B)
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; DIVERSITY
18 and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
Complaint Filed: March 19, 2024
19 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set
20
21
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and
23 Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company hereby remove to this
24 Court the state court action described below.
25 1. On March 19, 2024, Plaintiffs R. Lawrence Bacon and Sharon Bacon
26 commenced Case No. 24CV00790 against Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and
27 Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company in the Superior Court of
28
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)
DIVERSITY
1
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 4
1 California, County of Santa Cruz. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct
2 copy of the Complaint filed in that action.
3 2. The first date upon which Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and/or
4 Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company received a copy of the
5 above-entitled Complaint was March 21, 2024, when Defendant was served with a copy
6
of the above-entitled Summons and Complaint from the Superior Court in Santa Cruz
7
County.
8
3. This is a civil action of which this court has original jurisdiction under 28
9
U.S.C. Section 1332 and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant
10
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b) in that it is a civil action between
11
citizens of different states. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000,
12
exclusive of interest and costs, because of the following facts:
13
A. This is an insurance breach of contract action arising from
14
15
Defendants’ alleged handling of Plaintiffs’ claim where, as a result of a fallen tree,
16 damage resulted to the residences premises and several outbuildings. Plaintiffs allege
17 they have incurred damage to the home, the outbuildings, and contents for which they
18 allege they were improperly denied certain insurance policy benefits or that certain
19 benefits remain owed to Plaintiff. (See Exhibit “A”, Complaint, paragraphs 6-67).
20 B. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to not less than $350,000
21 together with attorneys’ fees and costs and allege that Defendants have refused to pay
22 the full value of Plaintiffs’ claim and that insufficient insurance coverage has been
23 provided to Plaintiffs. (See Exhibit “A,” Complaint, paragraph 73-74).
24 4. Complete diversity of citizenship exists in that:
25 A. Plaintiffs R. Lawrence Bacon and Sharon Bacon are citizens of the
26
State of California (See Exhibit “A,” Complaint, paragraph 1).
27
B. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company was at all times relevant,
28
including from March 2023 through present, a corporation organized and existing under
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)
DIVERSITY
2
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 4
1 the laws of the State of Illinois and having its principal place of business in the State of
2 Illinois. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is not a citizen of California.
3 C. Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company was
4 at all times relevant, including from March 2023 through present, a corporation
5 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and having its principal
6
place of business in the State of Illinois. Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty
7
Insurance Company is not a citizen of California.
8
D. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and Defendant Allstate
9
Property and Casualty Insurance Company are the only named Defendants. (See Exhibit
10
“A”, Complaint, case caption on page 1).
11
5. Removal venue is appropriate for purposes of removal because the
12
Northern District of California embraces the place where the state court action is
13
pending.
14
15
6. Contemporaneous with the filing of this Notice, Defendant has provided
16 Plaintiff, and the Superior Court of Santa Cruz, California, with written notice of
17 removal.
18
19 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of April, 2024.
20
21 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
22
23 Elisabeth E. Martini, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant ALLSTATE
24 INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
25 INSURANCE COMPANY
26
27
28
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)
DIVERSITY
3
Exhibit A
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 251
CT Corporation
® Wolters Kluwer Service of Process Notification
03/21/2024
CT Log Number 546032591
Service of Process Transmittal Summary
TO: Shelley Wisniewski, Lead Consultant
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
8711 FREEPORT PKWY # 2
IRVING, TX 75063-2578
RE: Process Served in California
FOR: Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Domestic State: IL)
ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:
TITLE OF ACTION: R. LAWRENCE BACON AND SHARON BACON vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: Summons, Attachment(s), Stipulation and Order, Case Management Information,
Complaint, Exhibit(s)
COURT/AGENCY: Santa Cruz County - SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CA
Case # 24CV00790
NATURE OF ACTION: Insurance Litigation
PROCESS SERVED ON: C T Corporation System, GLENDALE, CA
DATE/METHOD OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 03/21/2024 at 10:07
JURISDICTION SERVED: California
APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: Within 30 calendar days after this summons and legal papers are served on you
(Document(s) may contain additional answer dates)
ATTORNEY(S)/SENDER(S): J. Kenneth Gorman
Penrose Chun & Gorman LLP
1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 260
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-515-3344
ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 03/21/2024, Expected Purge Date:
03/26/2024
Image SOP
REGISTERED AGENT CONTACT: Amanda Garcia
330 N BRAND BLVD
STE 700
GLENDALE, CA 91203
877-564-7529
MajorAccountTeam2@wolterskluwer.com
The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion,
and should not otherwise be relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other
information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s) of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the
included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other advisors as necessary. CT
Page 1 of 2
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 251
CT Corporation
® Wolters Kluwer Service of Process Notification
03/21/2024
CT Log Number 546032591
disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be
contained therein.
Page 2 of 2
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 251
0® Wolters Kluwer
PROCESS SERVER DELIVERY DETAILS
Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2024
Server Name: DROP SERVICE
Entity Served ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Case Number 24CV00790
Jurisdiction CA
Inserts
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 251
SUM-100
SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONLY
(SOLO PARA USO OE LA CORTE)
{CITACION JUDICIAL). ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: 3/19/2024 11 :24 AM
(A VISO AL DEMANDADO): Clerk of the Court by Deput ,
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE Erik Campos
COMPANY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
R. LAWRENCE BACON AND SHARON BACON
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respon within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the
court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may
be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
;AV/SOI Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias. la carte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci6n a
continuaci6n.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
carte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una 1/amada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la carte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la carte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov). en la
biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la carte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de la carte que
le de un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la carte le podra
quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede 1/amar a un servicio de
remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con /os requisitos para obtener servicios legates gratuitos de un
programa de servicios Jegales sin fines de Jucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de /ucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services.
(www.Jawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la carte o el
co/egio de abogados locales. AV/SO: Por fey, la carte tiene derecho a rec/amar las cuotas y Jos costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sabre
cua/quier recuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la carte antes de que la carte pueda desechar el caso.
CASE NUMBER:
The name and address of the court is: /Numero de/ Caso):
(El nombre y direcci6n de la carte es): Santa Cruz County Superior Court 24CV00790
701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la direcci6n y el numero de te/efono de/ abogado de/ demandante, o de/ demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
J. Kenneth Gorman, Penrose Chun & Gorman LLP, 1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 260, Santa Cruz, CA 950 0 831-515-3344
DATE: 3/19/2024 Clerk, by , Deputy
(Fe cha) (Secretario) "Adjunto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-01 rik Campos
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formu/ario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
[SEALJ NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
1. D as an individual defendant.
2. D as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
3. ~ on behalf of (specify): Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company
under:~ CCP 416.10 (corporation) D CCP 416.60 (minor)
CJ
CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) D CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
D CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) D CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
D other (specify):
4. D by personal delivery on (date):
Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
Judicial Counci of Caifornia SUMMONS
WWW'.courts.ca.gov
SUM-100 IRev. July 1, 2009]
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 251
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Cruz
3/19/2024 11 :24 AM
J. Kenneth Gom1an, SBN 102293 Clerk of the Court by Deputy,
Penrose Chun & G01man LLP Erik Campos
2 1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 260
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
3 • Telephone: (831) 515-3344
Facsimile: (831) 515-3308
4 kgorman@pcg-llp.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs R. Lawrence Bacon
and Sharon Bacon
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
10 R. LAWREN CE BACON AND SHARON ) Case No. 24CV00790
BACON, )
11 )
Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE;
12 ) BREACH OF INSURANCE CONTRACT;
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF
13 V.
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
~
14 ALL ST ATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ) INSURANCE CODE; AND PUNITIVE
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY ) DAMAGES
15 INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 )
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
16
Defendants.
~
)
17
___________ )
18
19 Plaintiffs allege:
20 COMMON ALLEGATIONS
21 1. This case is brought by R.'Lawrence Bacon and Sharon Bacon against Allstate
22 Insurance Company because Allstate has failed to fairly, promptly, or reasonably pay for
23 damages to their property caused by a tree that fell from their neighbor's property onto theirs on
24 March 20, 2023. While Plaintiffs promptly reported the claim and hired a construction manager
25 who repeatedly provided photos, detailed estimates, and bids from licensed California
26 contractors, Allstate assigned a series of out of state adjusters with no understanding of
27 California construction laws and prices and stalled and/or ignored the claim requests, and/or
28 made pretextual demands as a condition of claim approval and payment. As a result, almost a
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 1
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 251
year after the tree fall, Plaintiffs have been unable to complete the repairs on the prope1ty and
2 continue to be without the use of parts of the main house and both outbuildings and have had to
3 hire an attorney to pursue this claim and file a lawsuit against their neighbors.
4 PARTIES
5 2. Plaintiffs R. Lawrence Bacon ("Larry Bacon") and Sharon Bacon are the named
6 insureds for the real property at 11390 Berkeley Way, Brookdale, CA, known as Assessor's
7 Parcel Nos. 709-101-04, 079-101-06, 079-101-13, and 079-101-15 ("Bacon Property"). The
8 Bacon Property consists of a classic rustic styled 2 story wood framed main house, a detached
9 studio and garage, and a detached guest cottage on 1.8 acres in the redwoods. The Bacon
10 Property is a family vacation compound. Plaintiff Larry Bacon is 85 years old. The Bacon
11 Property has been insured by Plaintiffs through one of the Allstate Insurance companies for 39
12 years.
13 3. Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Property and Casualty
14 Company ("Allstate") are Illinois corporations licensed to and issuing insurance policies in
15 California, including homeowners/fire insurance policies. The relationship between those
16 entities is unclear because all communications that Plaintiffs have received regarding the policy
17 only come from "Allstate" or "Allstate Insurance."
18 4. Plaintiffs have been purchasing homeowners' insurance from Allstate insurance
19 agent Trish Le of San Francisco. On March 15, 2023, Plaintiffs renewed "Deluxe Homeowners
20 Policy" no. 914130017 for the Bacon Property through Ms. Le. A copy of the renewal notice,
21 policy endorsement, and notices of changes to policy are Exhibit A. In summary, the policy
22 provides for repair/replacement of structures on the Bacon Property up to policy limits of
23 $1,071,048 for the main house, $183,150 for "other structures," a statutorily required building
24 code upgrade coverage of$107,105, $749,734 for personal property damage, and up to two
25 years ($214,210) in relocation costs. Plaintiffs have duly paid all premiums on the policy.
26 5. Plaintiffs are unaware of the names and capacities of Does 1 through 10 and thus
27 sues them by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint when the true names and
28 capacities of said Doe Defendants are discovered. In particular, Allstate's claims are handled
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 2
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 7 of 251
through a central 800 number and 866 fax number. Some of the claims activities are farmed out
2 to "outside adjusters." No physical addresses, mailing addresses, or individual email addresses
3 were provided for any of the adjusters who were assigned to this matter. All communications
4 went through claims@claims.allstate.com.
5 6. On or about March 20, 2023, a large tree which was on the property of neighbors
6 Tamara and Scott Kley Contini fell onto the Bacon Property. The tree caused considerable
7 damage to the main house on the Bacon Prope1iy and effectively destroyed the cottage/garage.
8 Plaintiff Larry Bacon's brother, Peter, had been living in the cottage in exchange for maintainin
9 the property and being on-site security. The tree punched a hole through the roof of the main
10 house and opened it to the rain, which caused interior damage to parts of the second and first
11 floor. The tree ruptured the gas lines to the main house and cottage, so they had to be capped of
12 by PG&E. The tree also crushed a car. Fortunately, nobody was injured when the tree fell.
]3 7. Plaintiffs learned of the event from Peter and called their Allstate agent, Trish Le,
14 to make a claim to Allstate on Mach 21, 2023. Allstate assigned claim no. 0707160677 to the
15 matter. On March 21, 2023, Pla'intiffLany Bacon received an email from Allstate
16 representative Shabana Aziz Saikh at claims@claims.allstate.com acknowledging receipt of the
17 claim. As instructed, on March 23, 2023, Plaintiff Larry Bacon sent a responsive email advising
18 that a tree from the neighbor's house fell on "a building unit," a garage, and the main home.
19 8. On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff Larry Bacon got a generic Allstate email asking him
20 to contact Shelesa Bell "to discuss important information regarding your claim." On March 25,
21 2023, Allstate sent an email to Plaintiff Larry Bacon asking him to contact Kendall Holmes to
22 schedule an inspection.
23 9. On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff Larry Bacon received a phone call, then an email,
24 from Emily Hernandez, whose email said she was with "Pilot Catastrophe Services, Adjusting
25 Finn, CA license #2B 19572 Allstate Insurance Company, Emily Hernandez, Allstate Insurance.
26 Company" The email was from claims@claims.allstate.com. The email attached a "Personal
27 Property spreadsheet" and instructed him not to throw out anything until approved by the
28 "contents adjuster" and advised that "technicians reports or refinishing estimates may be
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 3
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California l□ surance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 8 of 251
required" and told him to take photo of the damaged items. Plaintiff Larry Bacon assumed that
2 Ms. Hernandez and Pilot were part of Allstate. Months later it was discovered that Pilot is
3 independent of Allstate, though the true relationship was never revealed, and that Pilot is in
4 Mobile, Alabama.
5 10. On March 28, 2023, Precious Privott from Allstate claims emailed Plaintiff Larry
6 Bacon telling him to contact Shauntrice Anderson to schedule an inspection. Plaintiff Lan-y
7 Bacon eventually scheduled that inspection directly with Allstate adjuster Cheryl Noble because
8 of difficulties arranging the inspection through Ms. Anderson. Allstate told Plaintiff Lan-y
9 Bacon that he could mitigate damages, but not start any repairs until the inspection.
11. Within days after the tree fell, Plaintiff Larry Bacon hired Ali Scontrino, a
11 construction project manager for general contractor Workbench, with over 25 years' experience
12 to oversee the repair and reconstruction process. Conveniently, Ms. Scontrino lives nearby. Ms.
13 Scontrino inspected the Bacon Property, took photos, and hired professional engineer Charles
14 Pro grace to assess the structural integrity of the house and cottage to evaluate safety concerns
15 for the cleaning and repair crews as the first step in the repair/replacement process. Mr.
16 Prograce determined that the cottage was severely damaged and structurally compromised. The
17 house needed shoring before full inspection and repairs. Ms. Scontrino sent an email to Ms.
18 Hernandez on April 4, 2023, attaching photos of the damage.
]9 12. Ms. Noble's inspection on April 12, 2023 was cursory. Ms. Scontrino attended
20 with Ms. Noble and explained the extent of the damage and tried to get Ms. Noble to do a
21 complete inspection so that Allstate could formulate an accurate scope and cost of repair. Ms.
22 Noble declined to follow Ms. Scontrino's advice and never returned for a full inspection.
23 13. On April 4, 2023, Ms. Scontrino sent another email to Ms. Hernandez advising
24 that the house needed immediate attention to prevent further damage and that based on the
25 engineer's assessment, the cottage was totaled. Ms. Hernandez did not respond. Instead,
26 Allstate moved the claim to Tonia Broaders, who responded on April 17, 2023, saying she
27 would forward Ms. Scontrino's emails to the adjuster "handling the dwelling coverage." It is
28 unknown what other category of adjuster would have been assigned to this claim before then.
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, ·Breach of Insurance Contract; 4
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 9 of 251
14. But there was no assignment; Ms. Broaders stayed on the claim. and did nothing to
2 advance the investigation. As if the photos were not evidence enough, Ms. Broaders demanded
3 a formal opinion letter from the engineer confirming the damage. Ms. Scontrino got that from
4 Mr. Prograce and emailed it to Ms. Broaders on May 30, 2023. But Ms. Broaders did not
5 respond. Instead, Obelia Johnson, the latest Allstate adjuster, responded by stating they might
6 submit that letter to another engineer for a second opinion. That finally happened 8 months
7 later, on January 16, 2024. That email string from April 4-May 30, 2023 is Exhibit B.
8 15. Meanwhile, Plaintiff Larry Bacon emailed Ms. Hernandez on April 21, 2023, to
9 ask about removing smaller trees on the Bacon Property that were leaning. His email was
10 answered by Sonya Bush, who wrote that Ms. Hernandez was out of the office and would reply
11 upon her return- but no return date was stated. But on April 24, Ms. Broaders emailed him that
J2 she was sending his emails to a "supplemental adjuster," apparently expecting Plaintiff Larry
13 Bacon to know what that meant.
14 16. On April 24, 2023, Ms. Noble emailed Ms. Scontrino asking if the cabinets in the
15 collapsing cottage could be salvaged. As Ms. Scontrino explained, the answer was "No,"
16 because removing them. could cause the structure to collapse onto the workers. Allstate had not
J7 considered the safety of workers as more important than saving a few dollars on cabinets. Ms.
18 Noble thanked Ms. Scontrino for helping the Bacon family move forward. That em.ail string is
19 Exhibit C. That same day, in response to Ms. Noble's erroneous opinion that the cottage was
20 repairable, Plaintiff Larry Bacon informed Allstate via email that he would formally hire an
21 engineer to assess the building's condition.
22 17. On April 27, 2023, Ms. Noble sent an estimate for repairs to the main house,
23 garage, and cottage that totaled $108,463.82. A true copy of that email and estimate are Exhibit
24 D. Per the summary on page 13 of the estimate, it allocates $19,346.55 for the repairs to the
25 main house and $88,859.27 to repair the cottage, ignoring Ms. Scontrino's statement and the
26 engineer's opinion that the cottage could not be repaired and in fact not even entered safely.
27 Allstate had not sent out an engineer to inspect and provided no basis for concluding that the
28 cottage could be repaired.
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 5
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 10 of 251
18. The estimate allocated $9,185.33 to repair the roof and roof framing on the main
2 house. Ms. Noble cmi-ectly estimated the damaged area of the roof size as 1,206 square feet but
3 the accuracy stopped there. She estimated 16 hours of carpentty to remove and replace the
4 framing that had been smashed through by the tree, which is less than half the actual time. She
5 also called for replacement of only half the shingles on the roof without checking to see if
6 acceptable matches for the existing shingles were available- they have not been for at least 15
7 years. _California Code of Regulations Title 10 sec. 2695.9(a)(2) states, "When a loss requires
8 replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer
9 shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform
1O appearance."
11 19. The estimate stated that the materials cost had been verified by "Material Supply
12 Warehouse," which is an online supplier in Wisconsin. No actual quotes or material price sheets
13 were provided nor were any Northern California material suppliers contacted. She stated that
14 $128.88 is the average price for replacing a roofing square in "in your area." That is about half
15 the actual cost. A competent cost assessment would have revealed that no shingles that
16 reasonably match the existing shingles have been available for over 10 years.
17 20. As a result of incompetently estimating
I
the need for replacement shingles, the
18 estimate also failed to estimate the cost of replacement of the underlayments and the gutters.
19 The actual cost of proper repair and replacement per Moriarty's Roofing is $32,000.
20 21. On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff Larry Bacon received an email from Niyalla Lyday on
21 behalf of Ms. Noble asking him to contact her at his earliest convenience if he had any questions
22 or concerns about his claim. Plaintiff Larry Bacon responded the next day and asked if his
23 insurance would cover a POD to store his brother's furniture. Ms. Lyday's response was,
24 "Thank you for your feedback please contact local agency for answers to your policy questions,
25 or call the number in the previous email. Thank You." Despite asking Plaintiff Larry Bacon if
26 he had any questions, she deferred the one he had to "local agency," without explaining what
27 that is.
28 22. Obelia Johnson from Dallas became the new adjuster. On information and belief,
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 6
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 11 of 251
she possesses no licenses in any constrnction trades. Based on Ms. Noble's incomplete
2 inspection and woefully inadequate estimate, Allstate directed payment to the Bacon family trus
3 for $99,325.74 on May 3, 2023. The payment wa$ for "dwelling, other structures and
4 unscheduled personal property for windstorm and hail loss ... Please note: This payment was
5 calculated based on our review of your claim." The email was sent from the generic
6 claims(ii),claims@allstate.com, no person took responsibility for the review. There was no
7 explanation as to why hail was included in the claim, how the $99,325.74 was calculated, or
8 what, if anything, was excluded; the repair estimates from licensed contractors were about
9 $500,000.
10 23. Plaintiff Larry Bacon got another generic Allstate email asking if he had any
11 questions on May 27, 2023, from Frances G01ion.
12 24. On June 5, 2023, Ms. Johnson sent an email to Plaintiff Larry Bacon attaching a
13 document entitled "Bacon Final draft lab estimate." The email stated, "Here is your estimate
14 with lab test invoice for payment for $1,180 for asbestos and lead testing. You are to make
15 payment to the vendor for their services." Now, while Plaintiff Larry Bacon had, at Ms:•
16 Scontrino's suggestion, requested lead and asbestos testing because it would be required by
17 Santa Cruz County for repair permits, that is not what the attached document was. Instead, it
18 was an estimate from the "National Catastrophe Team" in Dallas. It provided Ms. Johnson's
19 mailing address. It said the property was entered April 26, 2023, and the estimate was
20 completed May 9, 2023.
21 25. There is no explanation for why it took 4 weeks to produce the estimate.
22 However, on May 31, 2023, Ms. Johnson emailed Plaintiff Larry Bacon acknowledging receipt
23 of Mr. Prograce's engineer's report t,hat the cottage was in significant failure. Ms. Scontrino ha
24 advised that it was not repairable. Those were ignored: the estimate allocated a total of
25 $59,822.12 for repairs to the cottage, including a line item of $1,120 for lead and asbestos
26 testing. There was no supporting bid from any contractor nor the opinion of any engineer that
27 the cottage could be repaired.
28 26. The estimate says, "Market prices were verified by Material Supply Warehouse,"
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 7
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 12 of 251
No supporting documentation was attached: The estimate allotted approximately $9,200 to
2 repair the roof as part of a total of only $26,396.09 for all repairs to the main house. That email
3 and estimate are Exhibit E.
4 27. The .estimate is_ difficult to interpret because of undefined terms and figures, but
5 the basics are that Allstate thought the main house could be fixed and the cottage rebuilt for
6 about $93,000. The scope of the repairs in the estimate are vastly less than what is needed and
7 the costs of labor and materials in the estimate are about 25-30% of the actual costs of
8 residential construction in this area of California, which is now approaching or exceeding $500
9 per square foot.
28. On June 16, 2023, Ms. Noble and Ms. Johnson each sent a generic email like the
11 one Niyalla Lyday sent a month earlier asking if Plaintiff Larry Bacon had any questions.
I2 Meanwhile, Allstate had done nothing.
13 29. In August, Ms. Johnson again asked for photos from Ms. Scontrino. It is unclear
14 how Allstate lost the first set Ms. Scontrino sent in April. Ms. Scontrino provided the photos
15 • agam.
16 30. Ms. Scontrino worked with well-respected Santa Cruz County contractor J.
l7 Hamilton, CSLB license no. 946043, to get estimates for the repairs. J. Hamilton provided an
18 initial estimate for damage to the main house, exclusive of the roof membranes, of $38,286.00,
19 in June 2023. Ms. Scontrino obtained a proposal/bid from Moriarty's Roofing to replace the
20 roof membranes and gutters for $32,060.44. True copies of the J. Hamilton and Moriarty's
21 Roofing estimates, which were sent to Allstate, are Exhibit F.
22 31. Because Ms. Johnson rejected the Moriarty repair on the grounds that new gutters
23 were an "upgrade" and replacement of all the shingles was beyond the scope of coverage,
24 Moriarty supplemented its proposal by confirming that the County would not approve the work
25 without the new gutters; the 20 year old existing shingles were too brittle to integrate; and that
26 type, shape, and dimensioned shingle had not been available for many years. That never
27 changed Allstate's mind and that issue remains unresolved. Ms. Johnson was unaware that
28 California law requires that replacement be of like kind and quality.
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 8
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 13 of 251
32. Ms. Scontrino estimated the cost to rebuild the cottage at $340,000, as per the
2 estimate from J. Hamilton Construction. A true copy of Ms. Scontrino's August 31, 2023 email
3 to Allstate setting out those details and the Moriarty estimate are Exhibit G. Her explanations
4 were ignored.
5 33. Exhibit G also includes Ms. Scontrino's email strings with Obelia Johnson
6 wherein Ms. Scontrino not only details the omissions in Allstate's allocation of funds, hut also
7 explains why a re-inspection is necessary. That request was ignored for months, and it was not
8 until January 2024, when another inspection finally occurred. But as set out below, that
9 inspection was also inadequate and the funding to Plaintiff Larry Bacon has been far sho11 of the
10 actual costs.
11 34. Allstate had delayed processing the rest of claim throughout the spring and
12 summer of 2023. In August-September, Ms. Scontrino reminded Allstate of the need to repair
13 the roof before the winter rains. As per Exhibit G, Ms. Scontrino explained, with backup
14 documentation from roofing contractors and suppliers, that the size, type, and color of shingles
15 on the roof had been unavailable for years and so matches could not be found. The only way to
16 have a match was to re-shingle the entire roof- a relatively minor part of the repair cost. Despite
17 that, Allstate withheld approval of final roof repairs and to this date has not approved those
18 repairs. In fact, via Ms. Johnson's email of September 11, 2023, Allstate mischaracterized the
19 request as "upgrades."
20 35. Starting in mid-2023 and continuing into 2024, Ms. Scontrino sent Allstate emails
21 updating the status of the various aspects of the project, including permit applications, estimates
22 from various contractors, expected roles of engineers, the permit process, spreadsheets setting
23 out the components of the repairs and replacements needed and explanations of the damages and
24 the need for money to .fund the. repairs .. Despite repeatedly being shown the need for at least
25 $340,000 to rebuild the cottage and $13J,000 to repair the main house, Allstate refused to
26 allocate any more money towards the repairs.
27 36. By August 2023, Allstate's intransigence reached the point where Plaintiff Larry
28 Bacon decided to have undersigned counsel intervene on his behalf. Over the next several
Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al.
Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 9
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Fa.ith and Fair Dealing;
Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages
Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 14 of 251
months, undersigned counsel sent several emails to Allstate attempting to coax it into following
2 its obligations under the insurance contract and California law to promptly and fairly investigate
3 the claim and properly finance the repairs.
. .
4 37. Allstate's initial reaction to counsel's involvement was to change adjusters, from
5 Obelia Johnson to Autumn Romero. Because Allstate does not identify the location of its
. . .
6 adjusters, Ms. Romero's actual office location is not known, but is believed to be in Texas. Ms.
7 Romero had a f~w email exchanges with undersigned counsel which demonstrated her lack of
8 understanding of California law or the realities of constmction in California. She refused to
9 allocate any ad?itional funds. Instead, in early November 2023, she and/or Allstate brought in
l O yet another claims adjuster named Michael Crowder.
ll 38. The emails from Ms. Romero and Mr. Crowder said that Mr. Crowder also worke
12 for Pilot Catastrophe Services, again identified as a California adjusting service. While it
13 seemed that Allstate was assigning an adjuster from California, that was not true. The first clue
14 was that Mr. Crowder called undersigned counsel at 5:30 a.m. and left a brief message·stating
15 that it was 8:30 a.m. And while it was not clear where he lived, he had a distinct Southern
16 accent. A Google search led to the Pilot Catastrophe website, which showed that its offices
17 were in Mobile, Alabama.
18 39. Mr. Crowder's first act was"to call Ms. Scontrino and follow up with an email on
19 November 9, 2023, saying he would review the "supplemental items that you have ... " That was
20 followed by an email to undersigned
Preview
1 Elisabeth E. Martini (SBN 301701) Email: emartini@rlattorneys.com 2 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 3 9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 4 Telephone/Facsimile: (714) 709-4400 5 Attorney for Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and 6 Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 9 10 R. LAWRENCE BACON AND SHARON Case No.: 24CV00790 11 BACON, 12 Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF 13 REMOVAL v. 14 Complaint Filed: March 19, 2024 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; Trial Date: None 15 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 16 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance 20 Company by and through undersigned counsel, files this Notice of Filing Notice of Removal of the 21 above captioned matter in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A 22 copy of the Notice of Removal and all attachments thereto are attached to this Notice as Exhibit 1 23 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of April, 2024. 24 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 25 26 Elisabeth E. Martini, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant ALLSTATE 27 INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO. 28 1 CAPTION Exhibit 1 Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 4 1 Elisabeth E. Martini, SBN 301701 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 2 9891 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 200 3 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (714) 709-4400 4 Facsimile: (714) 709-4400 5 Email: emartini@rlattorneys.com; 6 Attorneys for Defendant ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE 7 PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 R. LAWRENCE BACON AND SHARON CASE NO.: 5:24-cv-02363-SVK BACON, 14 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 15 v. REMOVAL OF ACTION TO 16 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28 17 ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND U.S.C. SECTION 1441 (B) CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; DIVERSITY 18 and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Complaint Filed: March 19, 2024 19 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set 20 21 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and 23 Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company hereby remove to this 24 Court the state court action described below. 25 1. On March 19, 2024, Plaintiffs R. Lawrence Bacon and Sharon Bacon 26 commenced Case No. 24CV00790 against Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and 27 Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company in the Superior Court of 28 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) DIVERSITY 1 Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 4 1 California, County of Santa Cruz. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct 2 copy of the Complaint filed in that action. 3 2. The first date upon which Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and/or 4 Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company received a copy of the 5 above-entitled Complaint was March 21, 2024, when Defendant was served with a copy 6 of the above-entitled Summons and Complaint from the Superior Court in Santa Cruz 7 County. 8 3. This is a civil action of which this court has original jurisdiction under 28 9 U.S.C. Section 1332 and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant 10 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(b) in that it is a civil action between 11 citizens of different states. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, 12 exclusive of interest and costs, because of the following facts: 13 A. This is an insurance breach of contract action arising from 14 15 Defendants’ alleged handling of Plaintiffs’ claim where, as a result of a fallen tree, 16 damage resulted to the residences premises and several outbuildings. Plaintiffs allege 17 they have incurred damage to the home, the outbuildings, and contents for which they 18 allege they were improperly denied certain insurance policy benefits or that certain 19 benefits remain owed to Plaintiff. (See Exhibit “A”, Complaint, paragraphs 6-67). 20 B. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to not less than $350,000 21 together with attorneys’ fees and costs and allege that Defendants have refused to pay 22 the full value of Plaintiffs’ claim and that insufficient insurance coverage has been 23 provided to Plaintiffs. (See Exhibit “A,” Complaint, paragraph 73-74). 24 4. Complete diversity of citizenship exists in that: 25 A. Plaintiffs R. Lawrence Bacon and Sharon Bacon are citizens of the 26 State of California (See Exhibit “A,” Complaint, paragraph 1). 27 B. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company was at all times relevant, 28 including from March 2023 through present, a corporation organized and existing under DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) DIVERSITY 2 Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 4 1 the laws of the State of Illinois and having its principal place of business in the State of 2 Illinois. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is not a citizen of California. 3 C. Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company was 4 at all times relevant, including from March 2023 through present, a corporation 5 organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and having its principal 6 place of business in the State of Illinois. Defendant Allstate Property and Casualty 7 Insurance Company is not a citizen of California. 8 D. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company and Defendant Allstate 9 Property and Casualty Insurance Company are the only named Defendants. (See Exhibit 10 “A”, Complaint, case caption on page 1). 11 5. Removal venue is appropriate for purposes of removal because the 12 Northern District of California embraces the place where the state court action is 13 pending. 14 15 6. Contemporaneous with the filing of this Notice, Defendant has provided 16 Plaintiff, and the Superior Court of Santa Cruz, California, with written notice of 17 removal. 18 19 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of April, 2024. 20 21 RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C. 22 23 Elisabeth E. Martini, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant ALLSTATE 24 INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 25 INSURANCE COMPANY 26 27 28 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) DIVERSITY 3 Exhibit A Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 251 CT Corporation ® Wolters Kluwer Service of Process Notification 03/21/2024 CT Log Number 546032591 Service of Process Transmittal Summary TO: Shelley Wisniewski, Lead Consultant ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY 8711 FREEPORT PKWY # 2 IRVING, TX 75063-2578 RE: Process Served in California FOR: Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Domestic State: IL) ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: TITLE OF ACTION: R. LAWRENCE BACON AND SHARON BACON vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY DOCUMENT(S) SERVED: Summons, Attachment(s), Stipulation and Order, Case Management Information, Complaint, Exhibit(s) COURT/AGENCY: Santa Cruz County - SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CA Case # 24CV00790 NATURE OF ACTION: Insurance Litigation PROCESS SERVED ON: C T Corporation System, GLENDALE, CA DATE/METHOD OF SERVICE: By Process Server on 03/21/2024 at 10:07 JURISDICTION SERVED: California APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE: Within 30 calendar days after this summons and legal papers are served on you (Document(s) may contain additional answer dates) ATTORNEY(S)/SENDER(S): J. Kenneth Gorman Penrose Chun & Gorman LLP 1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 260 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 831-515-3344 ACTION ITEMS: CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 03/21/2024, Expected Purge Date: 03/26/2024 Image SOP REGISTERED AGENT CONTACT: Amanda Garcia 330 N BRAND BLVD STE 700 GLENDALE, CA 91203 877-564-7529 MajorAccountTeam2@wolterskluwer.com The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, and should not otherwise be relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s) of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other advisors as necessary. CT Page 1 of 2 Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 251 CT Corporation ® Wolters Kluwer Service of Process Notification 03/21/2024 CT Log Number 546032591 disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be contained therein. Page 2 of 2 Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 251 0® Wolters Kluwer PROCESS SERVER DELIVERY DETAILS Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2024 Server Name: DROP SERVICE Entity Served ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Case Number 24CV00790 Jurisdiction CA Inserts Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 251 SUM-100 SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONLY (SOLO PARA USO OE LA CORTE) {CITACION JUDICIAL). ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Cruz NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: 3/19/2024 11 :24 AM (A VISO AL DEMANDADO): Clerk of the Court by Deput , ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE Erik Campos COMPANY; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): R. LAWRENCE BACON AND SHARON BACON NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respon within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. ;AV/SOI Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias. la carte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci6n a continuaci6n. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta carte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una 1/amada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la carte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la carte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov). en la biblioteca de /eyes de su condado o en la carte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de la carte que le de un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la carte le podra quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que flame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede 1/amar a un servicio de remisi6n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con /os requisitos para obtener servicios legates gratuitos de un programa de servicios Jegales sin fines de Jucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de /ucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services. (www.Jawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la carte o el co/egio de abogados locales. AV/SO: Por fey, la carte tiene derecho a rec/amar las cuotas y Jos costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sabre cua/quier recuperaci6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la carte antes de que la carte pueda desechar el caso. CASE NUMBER: The name and address of the court is: /Numero de/ Caso): (El nombre y direcci6n de la carte es): Santa Cruz County Superior Court 24CV00790 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direcci6n y el numero de te/efono de/ abogado de/ demandante, o de/ demandante que no tiene abogado, es): J. Kenneth Gorman, Penrose Chun & Gorman LLP, 1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 260, Santa Cruz, CA 950 0 831-515-3344 DATE: 3/19/2024 Clerk, by , Deputy (Fe cha) (Secretario) "Adjunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-01 rik Campos (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formu/ario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). [SEALJ NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. D as an individual defendant. 2. D as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3. ~ on behalf of (specify): Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company under:~ CCP 416.10 (corporation) D CCP 416.60 (minor) CJ CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) D CCP 416.70 (conservatee) D CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) D CCP 416.90 (authorized person) D other (specify): 4. D by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465 Judicial Counci of Caifornia SUMMONS WWW'.courts.ca.gov SUM-100 IRev. July 1, 2009] Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 251 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Cruz 3/19/2024 11 :24 AM J. Kenneth Gom1an, SBN 102293 Clerk of the Court by Deputy, Penrose Chun & G01man LLP Erik Campos 2 1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 260 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 3 • Telephone: (831) 515-3344 Facsimile: (831) 515-3308 4 kgorman@pcg-llp.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs R. Lawrence Bacon and Sharon Bacon 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ 10 R. LAWREN CE BACON AND SHARON ) Case No. 24CV00790 BACON, ) 11 ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE; 12 ) BREACH OF INSURANCE CONTRACT; BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF 13 V. GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; ) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA ~ 14 ALL ST ATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ) INSURANCE CODE; AND PUNITIVE ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY ) DAMAGES 15 INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 ) THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, 16 Defendants. ~ ) 17 ___________ ) 18 19 Plaintiffs allege: 20 COMMON ALLEGATIONS 21 1. This case is brought by R.'Lawrence Bacon and Sharon Bacon against Allstate 22 Insurance Company because Allstate has failed to fairly, promptly, or reasonably pay for 23 damages to their property caused by a tree that fell from their neighbor's property onto theirs on 24 March 20, 2023. While Plaintiffs promptly reported the claim and hired a construction manager 25 who repeatedly provided photos, detailed estimates, and bids from licensed California 26 contractors, Allstate assigned a series of out of state adjusters with no understanding of 27 California construction laws and prices and stalled and/or ignored the claim requests, and/or 28 made pretextual demands as a condition of claim approval and payment. As a result, almost a Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 1 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 251 year after the tree fall, Plaintiffs have been unable to complete the repairs on the prope1ty and 2 continue to be without the use of parts of the main house and both outbuildings and have had to 3 hire an attorney to pursue this claim and file a lawsuit against their neighbors. 4 PARTIES 5 2. Plaintiffs R. Lawrence Bacon ("Larry Bacon") and Sharon Bacon are the named 6 insureds for the real property at 11390 Berkeley Way, Brookdale, CA, known as Assessor's 7 Parcel Nos. 709-101-04, 079-101-06, 079-101-13, and 079-101-15 ("Bacon Property"). The 8 Bacon Property consists of a classic rustic styled 2 story wood framed main house, a detached 9 studio and garage, and a detached guest cottage on 1.8 acres in the redwoods. The Bacon 10 Property is a family vacation compound. Plaintiff Larry Bacon is 85 years old. The Bacon 11 Property has been insured by Plaintiffs through one of the Allstate Insurance companies for 39 12 years. 13 3. Defendants Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Property and Casualty 14 Company ("Allstate") are Illinois corporations licensed to and issuing insurance policies in 15 California, including homeowners/fire insurance policies. The relationship between those 16 entities is unclear because all communications that Plaintiffs have received regarding the policy 17 only come from "Allstate" or "Allstate Insurance." 18 4. Plaintiffs have been purchasing homeowners' insurance from Allstate insurance 19 agent Trish Le of San Francisco. On March 15, 2023, Plaintiffs renewed "Deluxe Homeowners 20 Policy" no. 914130017 for the Bacon Property through Ms. Le. A copy of the renewal notice, 21 policy endorsement, and notices of changes to policy are Exhibit A. In summary, the policy 22 provides for repair/replacement of structures on the Bacon Property up to policy limits of 23 $1,071,048 for the main house, $183,150 for "other structures," a statutorily required building 24 code upgrade coverage of$107,105, $749,734 for personal property damage, and up to two 25 years ($214,210) in relocation costs. Plaintiffs have duly paid all premiums on the policy. 26 5. Plaintiffs are unaware of the names and capacities of Does 1 through 10 and thus 27 sues them by fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint when the true names and 28 capacities of said Doe Defendants are discovered. In particular, Allstate's claims are handled Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 2 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 7 of 251 through a central 800 number and 866 fax number. Some of the claims activities are farmed out 2 to "outside adjusters." No physical addresses, mailing addresses, or individual email addresses 3 were provided for any of the adjusters who were assigned to this matter. All communications 4 went through claims@claims.allstate.com. 5 6. On or about March 20, 2023, a large tree which was on the property of neighbors 6 Tamara and Scott Kley Contini fell onto the Bacon Property. The tree caused considerable 7 damage to the main house on the Bacon Prope1iy and effectively destroyed the cottage/garage. 8 Plaintiff Larry Bacon's brother, Peter, had been living in the cottage in exchange for maintainin 9 the property and being on-site security. The tree punched a hole through the roof of the main 10 house and opened it to the rain, which caused interior damage to parts of the second and first 11 floor. The tree ruptured the gas lines to the main house and cottage, so they had to be capped of 12 by PG&E. The tree also crushed a car. Fortunately, nobody was injured when the tree fell. ]3 7. Plaintiffs learned of the event from Peter and called their Allstate agent, Trish Le, 14 to make a claim to Allstate on Mach 21, 2023. Allstate assigned claim no. 0707160677 to the 15 matter. On March 21, 2023, Pla'intiffLany Bacon received an email from Allstate 16 representative Shabana Aziz Saikh at claims@claims.allstate.com acknowledging receipt of the 17 claim. As instructed, on March 23, 2023, Plaintiff Larry Bacon sent a responsive email advising 18 that a tree from the neighbor's house fell on "a building unit," a garage, and the main home. 19 8. On March 24, 2023, Plaintiff Larry Bacon got a generic Allstate email asking him 20 to contact Shelesa Bell "to discuss important information regarding your claim." On March 25, 21 2023, Allstate sent an email to Plaintiff Larry Bacon asking him to contact Kendall Holmes to 22 schedule an inspection. 23 9. On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff Larry Bacon received a phone call, then an email, 24 from Emily Hernandez, whose email said she was with "Pilot Catastrophe Services, Adjusting 25 Finn, CA license #2B 19572 Allstate Insurance Company, Emily Hernandez, Allstate Insurance. 26 Company" The email was from claims@claims.allstate.com. The email attached a "Personal 27 Property spreadsheet" and instructed him not to throw out anything until approved by the 28 "contents adjuster" and advised that "technicians reports or refinishing estimates may be Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 3 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California l□ surance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 8 of 251 required" and told him to take photo of the damaged items. Plaintiff Larry Bacon assumed that 2 Ms. Hernandez and Pilot were part of Allstate. Months later it was discovered that Pilot is 3 independent of Allstate, though the true relationship was never revealed, and that Pilot is in 4 Mobile, Alabama. 5 10. On March 28, 2023, Precious Privott from Allstate claims emailed Plaintiff Larry 6 Bacon telling him to contact Shauntrice Anderson to schedule an inspection. Plaintiff Lan-y 7 Bacon eventually scheduled that inspection directly with Allstate adjuster Cheryl Noble because 8 of difficulties arranging the inspection through Ms. Anderson. Allstate told Plaintiff Lan-y 9 Bacon that he could mitigate damages, but not start any repairs until the inspection. 11. Within days after the tree fell, Plaintiff Larry Bacon hired Ali Scontrino, a 11 construction project manager for general contractor Workbench, with over 25 years' experience 12 to oversee the repair and reconstruction process. Conveniently, Ms. Scontrino lives nearby. Ms. 13 Scontrino inspected the Bacon Property, took photos, and hired professional engineer Charles 14 Pro grace to assess the structural integrity of the house and cottage to evaluate safety concerns 15 for the cleaning and repair crews as the first step in the repair/replacement process. Mr. 16 Prograce determined that the cottage was severely damaged and structurally compromised. The 17 house needed shoring before full inspection and repairs. Ms. Scontrino sent an email to Ms. 18 Hernandez on April 4, 2023, attaching photos of the damage. ]9 12. Ms. Noble's inspection on April 12, 2023 was cursory. Ms. Scontrino attended 20 with Ms. Noble and explained the extent of the damage and tried to get Ms. Noble to do a 21 complete inspection so that Allstate could formulate an accurate scope and cost of repair. Ms. 22 Noble declined to follow Ms. Scontrino's advice and never returned for a full inspection. 23 13. On April 4, 2023, Ms. Scontrino sent another email to Ms. Hernandez advising 24 that the house needed immediate attention to prevent further damage and that based on the 25 engineer's assessment, the cottage was totaled. Ms. Hernandez did not respond. Instead, 26 Allstate moved the claim to Tonia Broaders, who responded on April 17, 2023, saying she 27 would forward Ms. Scontrino's emails to the adjuster "handling the dwelling coverage." It is 28 unknown what other category of adjuster would have been assigned to this claim before then. Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, ·Breach of Insurance Contract; 4 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 9 of 251 14. But there was no assignment; Ms. Broaders stayed on the claim. and did nothing to 2 advance the investigation. As if the photos were not evidence enough, Ms. Broaders demanded 3 a formal opinion letter from the engineer confirming the damage. Ms. Scontrino got that from 4 Mr. Prograce and emailed it to Ms. Broaders on May 30, 2023. But Ms. Broaders did not 5 respond. Instead, Obelia Johnson, the latest Allstate adjuster, responded by stating they might 6 submit that letter to another engineer for a second opinion. That finally happened 8 months 7 later, on January 16, 2024. That email string from April 4-May 30, 2023 is Exhibit B. 8 15. Meanwhile, Plaintiff Larry Bacon emailed Ms. Hernandez on April 21, 2023, to 9 ask about removing smaller trees on the Bacon Property that were leaning. His email was 10 answered by Sonya Bush, who wrote that Ms. Hernandez was out of the office and would reply 11 upon her return- but no return date was stated. But on April 24, Ms. Broaders emailed him that J2 she was sending his emails to a "supplemental adjuster," apparently expecting Plaintiff Larry 13 Bacon to know what that meant. 14 16. On April 24, 2023, Ms. Noble emailed Ms. Scontrino asking if the cabinets in the 15 collapsing cottage could be salvaged. As Ms. Scontrino explained, the answer was "No," 16 because removing them. could cause the structure to collapse onto the workers. Allstate had not J7 considered the safety of workers as more important than saving a few dollars on cabinets. Ms. 18 Noble thanked Ms. Scontrino for helping the Bacon family move forward. That em.ail string is 19 Exhibit C. That same day, in response to Ms. Noble's erroneous opinion that the cottage was 20 repairable, Plaintiff Larry Bacon informed Allstate via email that he would formally hire an 21 engineer to assess the building's condition. 22 17. On April 27, 2023, Ms. Noble sent an estimate for repairs to the main house, 23 garage, and cottage that totaled $108,463.82. A true copy of that email and estimate are Exhibit 24 D. Per the summary on page 13 of the estimate, it allocates $19,346.55 for the repairs to the 25 main house and $88,859.27 to repair the cottage, ignoring Ms. Scontrino's statement and the 26 engineer's opinion that the cottage could not be repaired and in fact not even entered safely. 27 Allstate had not sent out an engineer to inspect and provided no basis for concluding that the 28 cottage could be repaired. Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 5 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 10 of 251 18. The estimate allocated $9,185.33 to repair the roof and roof framing on the main 2 house. Ms. Noble cmi-ectly estimated the damaged area of the roof size as 1,206 square feet but 3 the accuracy stopped there. She estimated 16 hours of carpentty to remove and replace the 4 framing that had been smashed through by the tree, which is less than half the actual time. She 5 also called for replacement of only half the shingles on the roof without checking to see if 6 acceptable matches for the existing shingles were available- they have not been for at least 15 7 years. _California Code of Regulations Title 10 sec. 2695.9(a)(2) states, "When a loss requires 8 replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer 9 shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform 1O appearance." 11 19. The estimate stated that the materials cost had been verified by "Material Supply 12 Warehouse," which is an online supplier in Wisconsin. No actual quotes or material price sheets 13 were provided nor were any Northern California material suppliers contacted. She stated that 14 $128.88 is the average price for replacing a roofing square in "in your area." That is about half 15 the actual cost. A competent cost assessment would have revealed that no shingles that 16 reasonably match the existing shingles have been available for over 10 years. 17 20. As a result of incompetently estimating I the need for replacement shingles, the 18 estimate also failed to estimate the cost of replacement of the underlayments and the gutters. 19 The actual cost of proper repair and replacement per Moriarty's Roofing is $32,000. 20 21. On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff Larry Bacon received an email from Niyalla Lyday on 21 behalf of Ms. Noble asking him to contact her at his earliest convenience if he had any questions 22 or concerns about his claim. Plaintiff Larry Bacon responded the next day and asked if his 23 insurance would cover a POD to store his brother's furniture. Ms. Lyday's response was, 24 "Thank you for your feedback please contact local agency for answers to your policy questions, 25 or call the number in the previous email. Thank You." Despite asking Plaintiff Larry Bacon if 26 he had any questions, she deferred the one he had to "local agency," without explaining what 27 that is. 28 22. Obelia Johnson from Dallas became the new adjuster. On information and belief, Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 6 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 11 of 251 she possesses no licenses in any constrnction trades. Based on Ms. Noble's incomplete 2 inspection and woefully inadequate estimate, Allstate directed payment to the Bacon family trus 3 for $99,325.74 on May 3, 2023. The payment wa$ for "dwelling, other structures and 4 unscheduled personal property for windstorm and hail loss ... Please note: This payment was 5 calculated based on our review of your claim." The email was sent from the generic 6 claims(ii),claims@allstate.com, no person took responsibility for the review. There was no 7 explanation as to why hail was included in the claim, how the $99,325.74 was calculated, or 8 what, if anything, was excluded; the repair estimates from licensed contractors were about 9 $500,000. 10 23. Plaintiff Larry Bacon got another generic Allstate email asking if he had any 11 questions on May 27, 2023, from Frances G01ion. 12 24. On June 5, 2023, Ms. Johnson sent an email to Plaintiff Larry Bacon attaching a 13 document entitled "Bacon Final draft lab estimate." The email stated, "Here is your estimate 14 with lab test invoice for payment for $1,180 for asbestos and lead testing. You are to make 15 payment to the vendor for their services." Now, while Plaintiff Larry Bacon had, at Ms:• 16 Scontrino's suggestion, requested lead and asbestos testing because it would be required by 17 Santa Cruz County for repair permits, that is not what the attached document was. Instead, it 18 was an estimate from the "National Catastrophe Team" in Dallas. It provided Ms. Johnson's 19 mailing address. It said the property was entered April 26, 2023, and the estimate was 20 completed May 9, 2023. 21 25. There is no explanation for why it took 4 weeks to produce the estimate. 22 However, on May 31, 2023, Ms. Johnson emailed Plaintiff Larry Bacon acknowledging receipt 23 of Mr. Prograce's engineer's report t,hat the cottage was in significant failure. Ms. Scontrino ha 24 advised that it was not repairable. Those were ignored: the estimate allocated a total of 25 $59,822.12 for repairs to the cottage, including a line item of $1,120 for lead and asbestos 26 testing. There was no supporting bid from any contractor nor the opinion of any engineer that 27 the cottage could be repaired. 28 26. The estimate says, "Market prices were verified by Material Supply Warehouse," Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 7 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 12 of 251 No supporting documentation was attached: The estimate allotted approximately $9,200 to 2 repair the roof as part of a total of only $26,396.09 for all repairs to the main house. That email 3 and estimate are Exhibit E. 4 27. The .estimate is_ difficult to interpret because of undefined terms and figures, but 5 the basics are that Allstate thought the main house could be fixed and the cottage rebuilt for 6 about $93,000. The scope of the repairs in the estimate are vastly less than what is needed and 7 the costs of labor and materials in the estimate are about 25-30% of the actual costs of 8 residential construction in this area of California, which is now approaching or exceeding $500 9 per square foot. 28. On June 16, 2023, Ms. Noble and Ms. Johnson each sent a generic email like the 11 one Niyalla Lyday sent a month earlier asking if Plaintiff Larry Bacon had any questions. I2 Meanwhile, Allstate had done nothing. 13 29. In August, Ms. Johnson again asked for photos from Ms. Scontrino. It is unclear 14 how Allstate lost the first set Ms. Scontrino sent in April. Ms. Scontrino provided the photos 15 • agam. 16 30. Ms. Scontrino worked with well-respected Santa Cruz County contractor J. l7 Hamilton, CSLB license no. 946043, to get estimates for the repairs. J. Hamilton provided an 18 initial estimate for damage to the main house, exclusive of the roof membranes, of $38,286.00, 19 in June 2023. Ms. Scontrino obtained a proposal/bid from Moriarty's Roofing to replace the 20 roof membranes and gutters for $32,060.44. True copies of the J. Hamilton and Moriarty's 21 Roofing estimates, which were sent to Allstate, are Exhibit F. 22 31. Because Ms. Johnson rejected the Moriarty repair on the grounds that new gutters 23 were an "upgrade" and replacement of all the shingles was beyond the scope of coverage, 24 Moriarty supplemented its proposal by confirming that the County would not approve the work 25 without the new gutters; the 20 year old existing shingles were too brittle to integrate; and that 26 type, shape, and dimensioned shingle had not been available for many years. That never 27 changed Allstate's mind and that issue remains unresolved. Ms. Johnson was unaware that 28 California law requires that replacement be of like kind and quality. Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 8 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 13 of 251 32. Ms. Scontrino estimated the cost to rebuild the cottage at $340,000, as per the 2 estimate from J. Hamilton Construction. A true copy of Ms. Scontrino's August 31, 2023 email 3 to Allstate setting out those details and the Moriarty estimate are Exhibit G. Her explanations 4 were ignored. 5 33. Exhibit G also includes Ms. Scontrino's email strings with Obelia Johnson 6 wherein Ms. Scontrino not only details the omissions in Allstate's allocation of funds, hut also 7 explains why a re-inspection is necessary. That request was ignored for months, and it was not 8 until January 2024, when another inspection finally occurred. But as set out below, that 9 inspection was also inadequate and the funding to Plaintiff Larry Bacon has been far sho11 of the 10 actual costs. 11 34. Allstate had delayed processing the rest of claim throughout the spring and 12 summer of 2023. In August-September, Ms. Scontrino reminded Allstate of the need to repair 13 the roof before the winter rains. As per Exhibit G, Ms. Scontrino explained, with backup 14 documentation from roofing contractors and suppliers, that the size, type, and color of shingles 15 on the roof had been unavailable for years and so matches could not be found. The only way to 16 have a match was to re-shingle the entire roof- a relatively minor part of the repair cost. Despite 17 that, Allstate withheld approval of final roof repairs and to this date has not approved those 18 repairs. In fact, via Ms. Johnson's email of September 11, 2023, Allstate mischaracterized the 19 request as "upgrades." 20 35. Starting in mid-2023 and continuing into 2024, Ms. Scontrino sent Allstate emails 21 updating the status of the various aspects of the project, including permit applications, estimates 22 from various contractors, expected roles of engineers, the permit process, spreadsheets setting 23 out the components of the repairs and replacements needed and explanations of the damages and 24 the need for money to .fund the. repairs .. Despite repeatedly being shown the need for at least 25 $340,000 to rebuild the cottage and $13J,000 to repair the main house, Allstate refused to 26 allocate any more money towards the repairs. 27 36. By August 2023, Allstate's intransigence reached the point where Plaintiff Larry 28 Bacon decided to have undersigned counsel intervene on his behalf. Over the next several Bacon v. Allstate Insurance Company., et al. Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Insurance Contract; 9 Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Fa.ith and Fair Dealing; Violation of California Insurance Code; and Punitive Damages Case 5:24-cv-02363-SVK Document 1-1 Filed 04/19/24 Page 14 of 251 months, undersigned counsel sent several emails to Allstate attempting to coax it into following 2 its obligations under the insurance contract and California law to promptly and fairly investigate 3 the claim and properly finance the repairs. . . 4 37. Allstate's initial reaction to counsel's involvement was to change adjusters, from 5 Obelia Johnson to Autumn Romero. Because Allstate does not identify the location of its . . . 6 adjusters, Ms. Romero's actual office location is not known, but is believed to be in Texas. Ms. 7 Romero had a f~w email exchanges with undersigned counsel which demonstrated her lack of 8 understanding of California law or the realities of constmction in California. She refused to 9 allocate any ad?itional funds. Instead, in early November 2023, she and/or Allstate brought in l O yet another claims adjuster named Michael Crowder. ll 38. The emails from Ms. Romero and Mr. Crowder said that Mr. Crowder also worke 12 for Pilot Catastrophe Services, again identified as a California adjusting service. While it 13 seemed that Allstate was assigning an adjuster from California, that was not true. The first clue 14 was that Mr. Crowder called undersigned counsel at 5:30 a.m. and left a brief message·stating 15 that it was 8:30 a.m. And while it was not clear where he lived, he had a distinct Southern 16 accent. A Google search led to the Pilot Catastrophe website, which showed that its offices 17 were in Mobile, Alabama. 18 39. Mr. Crowder's first act was"to call Ms. Scontrino and follow up with an email on 19 November 9, 2023, saying he would review the "supplemental items that you have ... " That was 20 followed by an email to undersigned