Preview
12/2/2020
1 JOSEPH A. WEST,SEN 218847
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. WEST
2
575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 120
3 Fresno, California 93720
Tel:(310)478-0890 Fax: (866)624-0763 E-mail: iosephwest@westla\^^rmofcalifomia.com
4
ROBERT H. ROE,SEN 091041
5 15651 Dickens Street
No. 104
6
Encino, CA 91436-3133
7 Tel:(760)443-0984 Fax:(818)235-0172 E-mail: rroe231@gmail.com
8 Attorneys for plaintiffs: Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
12
13
BLAKE JOHNSTON,an individual, and CASE NUMBER:20CV02366
14 CHERYL JOHNSTON,an individual.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
15 Plaintiffs, DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
16
V. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; AND
17
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY 2. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT
18 GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN,a OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
Michigan corporation; and DOES 1 TO 10, DEALING
19
Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
22 Plaintiffs Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston allege:
23 1. Plaintiffs Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston(“plaintiffs”)are, and at all relevant
24 times were, residents of the County of Butte and citizens ofthe State of California.
25 2. At all relevant times, defendant Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids,
26 Michigan(“Foremost”) was and currently is a corporation duly organized and existing under and
27 by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal place of business in Grand
28 Rapids, Michigan.
1
COMPLAINT
9 J. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities ofthe defendants sued herein
J as Does I through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue those defendants by fictitious names pursuant
4 to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to state
5 the true names and capacities of the fictitiously-named cross-defendants when those names are
6 ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously-
7 named defendants is legally responsible in some manner for the events and damages alleged in
this Complaint under the causes of action alleged herein.
9 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the named
10 and fictitious defendants identified in this Complaint was the agent, partner, co-joint venturer,
11 associate and/or employee of one or more of the other defendants and was acting in the course
12 and scope of such agency, partnership,joint venture, association and/or employment when the
13 acts giving rise to the causes of action occurred.
14 5. At all relevant times, plaintiffs were husband and wife and the joint owners of a
15 manufactured home located at 14587 Asheville Drive, Magalia CA 95954(the "subject
16 property'’). At all relevant times during 2018. the subject property was insured for the risk of
17 damage or loss to the structure and personal property under manufactured home insurance
18 policy number 103-0921755800-18 (the “policy”) issued by defendant Foremost and delivered
19 to plaintiffs in Butte County. Payment of benefits under the terms of the contract was intended
20 by the parties to be made to plaintiffs in Butte County; therefore, because the location of the
21 subject property and the place of performance of the contract is in Butte County, venue in this
22 Court is proper.
23 6. Among other things, the policy provided replacement cost coverage up to a
24 stated limit of $80,000 (plus an additional twenty-percent extended replacement cost benefit
25 above that limit) for all risks of direct physical loss to plaintiffs' dwelling not specifically
26 excluded or excepted under the terms of the policy, including physical loss or damage caused
27 by fire. The policy also provided coverage for direct physical loss to plaintiffs’ personal
28 property up to a stated limit of $80,000. The policy further provided coverage for additional
2
COMPLAINT
1 living expenses up to a stated limit of $16,000. None of the exclusions or limitations set forth
2 in the policy apply to plaintiffs’ loss described below.
7. A complete copy of the policy, together with all declarations pages, forms and
4 endorsements, is in the possession of defendant Foremost as required by California law.
5 Defendant Foremost is fully aware of all the terms and conditions of the above-referenced
6 policy, and plaintiffs are therefore not required to attach a copy of the insurance policy to this
7 Complaint.
9 FIRST CA USE OFACTION
10 {Breach of Contract Against Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan Only)
11 8. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1 through 7, inclusive, ofthis Complaint and by such
12 reference incorporate those paragraphs herein as though set forth in full.
13 9. On or about November 8, 2018, while the policy was in force, plaintiffs suffered
14 damage and loss to the subject property caused by a wildfire that swept through the area. Among
15 other things, plaintiffs’ dwelling and personal property were inundated with smoke, soot and ash
16 from the wildfire, which contained toxic and unsafe substances. Plaintiffs were forced to
17 abandon their home and incurred additional living expenses in the form of hotel bills, food and
18 travel expenses.
19 10. Plaintiffs promptly notified defendant Foremost of their claim and otherwise
20 complied with all claim reporting requirements set forth in the policy. Foremost confirmed
21 receipt of the claim on or about December 12, 2018. Thereafter, the two-year contractual
22 limitations period applicable to this claim under California law and the terms of the policy
23 remained tolled until the claim was unequivocally denied in writing and the file closed by
24 Foremost on or after .lanuary 4, 2019. This lawsuit is therefore timely filed.
25 11. Defendant Foremost assigned an adjuster to investigate the claim. Plaintiffs gave
26 Foremost full access to the damaged building and their damaged personal property, provided all
27 information requested by Foremost during the investigation, and otherwise fully cooperated with
28 Foremost in its investigation.
COMPLAINT
1 12. Foremost failed to conduct a fair, thorough and complete investigation of
2 plaintiffs’ claim. Foremost failed to inspect the damaged dwelling, ignored obvious evidence of
smoke damage as well as other evidence submitted by plaintiffs in support of their claim, created
4 false or misleading reports, and asserted incorrect interpretations of policy language to
5 unreasonably justify and unfairly limit the amounts payable on the claim.
6 13. Foremost has acknowledged coverage of the claim under the terms of the policy;
7 but the company unreasonably delayed paying and still refuses to pay the full sum of money
owed to plaintiffs even though Foremost knew such benefits were immediately payable under
9 the terms of its policy.
10 14. Foremost breached the terms of its policy by failing and refusing to pay, or
11 unreasonably delaying payment of, contract benefits owed to plaintiffs for the covered losses that
12 occurred on and after November 8,2018. In addition to unpaid contract benefits described above,
13 plaintiffs have incurred consequential damages in an amount currently unknown. The exact
14 amounts of unpaid contract benefits and consequential damages will be proven at time of trial.
15 Plaintiffs also seek prejudgment interest on the total amount of contract benefits found due and
16 owing from the date of loss through the date judgment is entered in this case.
17
18 SECOND CAUSE OFACTION
19 {Breach ofthe Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
20 Against Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids^ Michigan Only)
21 15. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1 through 14, inclusive, of this Complaint and by
22 such reference incorporate those paragraphs herein as though set forth in full.
23 16. Foremost owed plaintiffs a duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to all
24
transactions and relationships arising under or related to its policy.
25
17. In handling the adjustment of plaintiffs’ claims as described above, Foremost
26
and its representatives elevated the interests of Foremost above those of plaintiffs and
27
28
4
COMPLAINT
subordinated plaintiffs’ interests to those of Foremost, engaging in unprofessional, wrongful.
2
abusive, fraudulent, unreasonable and tortious conduct with respect to plaintiffs and their claim.
3
18. Foremost breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by,
4
among other things:
5
a) Failing to properly, fairly and fully investigate plaintiffs’ claim;
6
7 b) Failing to evaluate plaintiffs’ claim objectively;
8 c) Using unduly restrictive and unreasonable interpretations of the policy as an
9
excuse for denying payment of benefits to plaintiffs;
10
d) using improper standards to adjust plaintiffs’ claim;
11
e) not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement
12
of plaintiffs’ claims;
13
14 f) failing to advise plaintiffs of all benefits, coverages, time limits and other
15 provisions that might apply to plaintiffs’ claim under the policy, as required by Title 10
16
of the California Code of Regulations Chapter 5 section 2695.4 subd.(a).
17
g) compelling plaintiffs to institute litigation to recover amounts due under the
18
policy.
19
h) Deliberately denying benefits the company knew were owed under the policy in
20
21 conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ known rights and established California case law.
22 i) Failing to respond in writing to proofs of claim submitted by plaintiffs in the
23
manner and within the time period required by the California Fair Claims Settlement
24
Practices Regulations(10 Cal. Code Regs, sections 2695.1 et seq.).
25
j) Refusing to properly inspect evidence made available by plaintiffs that showed
26
the full extent of fire damage to plaintiffs’ dwelling and personal property; and
27
28 k) Committing promissory fraud by issuing a policy that promised benefits
5
COMPLAINT
1 Foremost never intended to provide to plaintiffs.
2 19. As a proximate result of the wrongful and tortious conduct of Foremost and its
j
representatives, plaintiffs have suffered legally compensable damages in amounts to be shown
4
at time of trial, including loss of contract benefits, interest thereon, consequential damages and
0
emotional distress caused by the improper handling and nonpayment(or delay in payment) of
6 their claim.
7
20. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Foremost and its
representatives, plaintiffs have been required to engage the services of legal counsel and thereby
9
have incurred, and will continue to incur, costs and attorneys’ fees in an amount to be
10
determined according to proof Plaintiffs claim these attorneys' fees as a distinct item of
11
damage pursuant to Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.3d 813 (1985), and Cassim v.
12
Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal.4th 780(2004).
13
21. The conduct of Foremost described above was part of a long-established pattern
14
and practice of the company designed to force claimants to accept less benefits than they would
15
otherwise be entitled to receive under the terms of their policies and to unfairly minimize the
16
financial exposure and risk of Foremost. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege
17
that, prior to their loss, Foremost instituted various internal programs, which were designed to
18
increase profitability by unfairly minimizing the amounts paid to claimants, lowering the
19
combined loss ratio, and turning the claims department into a company profit center. Plaintiffs
20
are further informed and believe and thereon allege that Foremost instituted various corporate
21
programs and policies, which rewarded claims department personnel (directly and indirectly)
22
with pay raises and promotions if they found ways to minimize or eliminate legitimate
23
payments of benefits owed to claimants. By linking the career success and income of claims
24
department personnel to the results achieved in adjusting individual claims, Foremost actively
25
and knowingly encouraged its claim department personnel to engage in fraud, unfair conduct
26
and abuse of legitimate claimants such as plaintiffs.
27
99 Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that Foremost
28
adopted a practice of denying (or delaying payment of)legitimate claims -- such as the subject
6
COMPLAINT
1 claim of plaintiffs - and to support such denials by attempting to create phony “genuine issues
2 regarding coverage and contract liability. Foremost encouraged its consultants and independent
adjusters to submit written reports regarding their investigations that were false and misleading
4 with respect to the cause and/or scope of loss and/or the cost of repairing covered damage to
5 claimants' properties. Such conduct by Foremost and its consultants and independent adjusters
6 violates California Penal Code section 550 as well as other California statutes and regulations.
7 23. The acts and omissions of Foremost and its representatives described above were
8 part of the established corporate practices and procedures of Foremost and were directed,
9
approved or ratified by the management of the company.
10 24. In doing the acts described in this Complaint, Foremost acted intentionally,
11
recklessly and with a conscious disregard of the known rights of plaintiffs, and did so in a
12 fraudulent and oppressive manner, all of which warrants the imposition of punitive damages
13 under the guidelines set forth in Civil Code section 3294 in an amount sufficient to discourage
14
Foremost from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
COMPLAINT
1
7 WHEREFORE,plaintiffs Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston pray for judgment as
follows:
4 1. For special damages according to proof;
5 2. For general damages according to proof;
6 J. As to the second cause of action only, for attorneys' fees according to proof;
7 4. As to the second cause of action only, for an award of punitive or exemplary
damages in an amount sufficient to punish Foremost Insurance Company Grand
9 Rapids, Michigan and deter it from engaging in similar conduct in the future;
10 5. That plaintiffs be awarded their costs and expenses of suit herein; and
11 6. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
12
JOSEPH A. WEST
13
14 Bxi
Jo^^h A. West
15 Attorney for plaintiffs Blake Johnston and Cheryl
Johnston
16
17
19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21 Plaintiffs David C. Barrett and Kimberly Barrett hereby demand trial by jury of all
22 issues raised by the Complaint that may be tried to a jury.
23 JOSEP A. WEST
24
B^^
25 Joseph A. West
Attorney for plaintiffs Blake Johnston and
26 Cheryl Johnston
27
28
COMPLAINT
Preview
12/2/2020 1 JOSEPH A. WEST,SEN 218847 LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. WEST 2 575 E. Locust Avenue, Suite 120 3 Fresno, California 93720 Tel:(310)478-0890 Fax: (866)624-0763 E-mail: iosephwest@westla\^^rmofcalifomia.com 4 ROBERT H. ROE,SEN 091041 5 15651 Dickens Street No. 104 6 Encino, CA 91436-3133 7 Tel:(760)443-0984 Fax:(818)235-0172 E-mail: rroe231@gmail.com 8 Attorneys for plaintiffs: Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 12 13 BLAKE JOHNSTON,an individual, and CASE NUMBER:20CV02366 14 CHERYL JOHNSTON,an individual. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, 15 Plaintiffs, DECLARATORY RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 16 V. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; AND 17 FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY 2. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT 18 GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN,a OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR Michigan corporation; and DOES 1 TO 10, DEALING 19 Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 21 22 Plaintiffs Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston allege: 23 1. Plaintiffs Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston(“plaintiffs”)are, and at all relevant 24 times were, residents of the County of Butte and citizens ofthe State of California. 25 2. At all relevant times, defendant Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, 26 Michigan(“Foremost”) was and currently is a corporation duly organized and existing under and 27 by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal place of business in Grand 28 Rapids, Michigan. 1 COMPLAINT 9 J. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities ofthe defendants sued herein J as Does I through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue those defendants by fictitious names pursuant 4 to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to state 5 the true names and capacities of the fictitiously-named cross-defendants when those names are 6 ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously- 7 named defendants is legally responsible in some manner for the events and damages alleged in this Complaint under the causes of action alleged herein. 9 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the named 10 and fictitious defendants identified in this Complaint was the agent, partner, co-joint venturer, 11 associate and/or employee of one or more of the other defendants and was acting in the course 12 and scope of such agency, partnership,joint venture, association and/or employment when the 13 acts giving rise to the causes of action occurred. 14 5. At all relevant times, plaintiffs were husband and wife and the joint owners of a 15 manufactured home located at 14587 Asheville Drive, Magalia CA 95954(the "subject 16 property'’). At all relevant times during 2018. the subject property was insured for the risk of 17 damage or loss to the structure and personal property under manufactured home insurance 18 policy number 103-0921755800-18 (the “policy”) issued by defendant Foremost and delivered 19 to plaintiffs in Butte County. Payment of benefits under the terms of the contract was intended 20 by the parties to be made to plaintiffs in Butte County; therefore, because the location of the 21 subject property and the place of performance of the contract is in Butte County, venue in this 22 Court is proper. 23 6. Among other things, the policy provided replacement cost coverage up to a 24 stated limit of $80,000 (plus an additional twenty-percent extended replacement cost benefit 25 above that limit) for all risks of direct physical loss to plaintiffs' dwelling not specifically 26 excluded or excepted under the terms of the policy, including physical loss or damage caused 27 by fire. The policy also provided coverage for direct physical loss to plaintiffs’ personal 28 property up to a stated limit of $80,000. The policy further provided coverage for additional 2 COMPLAINT 1 living expenses up to a stated limit of $16,000. None of the exclusions or limitations set forth 2 in the policy apply to plaintiffs’ loss described below. 7. A complete copy of the policy, together with all declarations pages, forms and 4 endorsements, is in the possession of defendant Foremost as required by California law. 5 Defendant Foremost is fully aware of all the terms and conditions of the above-referenced 6 policy, and plaintiffs are therefore not required to attach a copy of the insurance policy to this 7 Complaint. 9 FIRST CA USE OFACTION 10 {Breach of Contract Against Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan Only) 11 8. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1 through 7, inclusive, ofthis Complaint and by such 12 reference incorporate those paragraphs herein as though set forth in full. 13 9. On or about November 8, 2018, while the policy was in force, plaintiffs suffered 14 damage and loss to the subject property caused by a wildfire that swept through the area. Among 15 other things, plaintiffs’ dwelling and personal property were inundated with smoke, soot and ash 16 from the wildfire, which contained toxic and unsafe substances. Plaintiffs were forced to 17 abandon their home and incurred additional living expenses in the form of hotel bills, food and 18 travel expenses. 19 10. Plaintiffs promptly notified defendant Foremost of their claim and otherwise 20 complied with all claim reporting requirements set forth in the policy. Foremost confirmed 21 receipt of the claim on or about December 12, 2018. Thereafter, the two-year contractual 22 limitations period applicable to this claim under California law and the terms of the policy 23 remained tolled until the claim was unequivocally denied in writing and the file closed by 24 Foremost on or after .lanuary 4, 2019. This lawsuit is therefore timely filed. 25 11. Defendant Foremost assigned an adjuster to investigate the claim. Plaintiffs gave 26 Foremost full access to the damaged building and their damaged personal property, provided all 27 information requested by Foremost during the investigation, and otherwise fully cooperated with 28 Foremost in its investigation. COMPLAINT 1 12. Foremost failed to conduct a fair, thorough and complete investigation of 2 plaintiffs’ claim. Foremost failed to inspect the damaged dwelling, ignored obvious evidence of smoke damage as well as other evidence submitted by plaintiffs in support of their claim, created 4 false or misleading reports, and asserted incorrect interpretations of policy language to 5 unreasonably justify and unfairly limit the amounts payable on the claim. 6 13. Foremost has acknowledged coverage of the claim under the terms of the policy; 7 but the company unreasonably delayed paying and still refuses to pay the full sum of money owed to plaintiffs even though Foremost knew such benefits were immediately payable under 9 the terms of its policy. 10 14. Foremost breached the terms of its policy by failing and refusing to pay, or 11 unreasonably delaying payment of, contract benefits owed to plaintiffs for the covered losses that 12 occurred on and after November 8,2018. In addition to unpaid contract benefits described above, 13 plaintiffs have incurred consequential damages in an amount currently unknown. The exact 14 amounts of unpaid contract benefits and consequential damages will be proven at time of trial. 15 Plaintiffs also seek prejudgment interest on the total amount of contract benefits found due and 16 owing from the date of loss through the date judgment is entered in this case. 17 18 SECOND CAUSE OFACTION 19 {Breach ofthe Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 20 Against Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids^ Michigan Only) 21 15. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1 through 14, inclusive, of this Complaint and by 22 such reference incorporate those paragraphs herein as though set forth in full. 23 16. Foremost owed plaintiffs a duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to all 24 transactions and relationships arising under or related to its policy. 25 17. In handling the adjustment of plaintiffs’ claims as described above, Foremost 26 and its representatives elevated the interests of Foremost above those of plaintiffs and 27 28 4 COMPLAINT subordinated plaintiffs’ interests to those of Foremost, engaging in unprofessional, wrongful. 2 abusive, fraudulent, unreasonable and tortious conduct with respect to plaintiffs and their claim. 3 18. Foremost breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by, 4 among other things: 5 a) Failing to properly, fairly and fully investigate plaintiffs’ claim; 6 7 b) Failing to evaluate plaintiffs’ claim objectively; 8 c) Using unduly restrictive and unreasonable interpretations of the policy as an 9 excuse for denying payment of benefits to plaintiffs; 10 d) using improper standards to adjust plaintiffs’ claim; 11 e) not attempting in good faith to effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement 12 of plaintiffs’ claims; 13 14 f) failing to advise plaintiffs of all benefits, coverages, time limits and other 15 provisions that might apply to plaintiffs’ claim under the policy, as required by Title 10 16 of the California Code of Regulations Chapter 5 section 2695.4 subd.(a). 17 g) compelling plaintiffs to institute litigation to recover amounts due under the 18 policy. 19 h) Deliberately denying benefits the company knew were owed under the policy in 20 21 conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ known rights and established California case law. 22 i) Failing to respond in writing to proofs of claim submitted by plaintiffs in the 23 manner and within the time period required by the California Fair Claims Settlement 24 Practices Regulations(10 Cal. Code Regs, sections 2695.1 et seq.). 25 j) Refusing to properly inspect evidence made available by plaintiffs that showed 26 the full extent of fire damage to plaintiffs’ dwelling and personal property; and 27 28 k) Committing promissory fraud by issuing a policy that promised benefits 5 COMPLAINT 1 Foremost never intended to provide to plaintiffs. 2 19. As a proximate result of the wrongful and tortious conduct of Foremost and its j representatives, plaintiffs have suffered legally compensable damages in amounts to be shown 4 at time of trial, including loss of contract benefits, interest thereon, consequential damages and 0 emotional distress caused by the improper handling and nonpayment(or delay in payment) of 6 their claim. 7 20. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Foremost and its representatives, plaintiffs have been required to engage the services of legal counsel and thereby 9 have incurred, and will continue to incur, costs and attorneys’ fees in an amount to be 10 determined according to proof Plaintiffs claim these attorneys' fees as a distinct item of 11 damage pursuant to Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.App.3d 813 (1985), and Cassim v. 12 Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal.4th 780(2004). 13 21. The conduct of Foremost described above was part of a long-established pattern 14 and practice of the company designed to force claimants to accept less benefits than they would 15 otherwise be entitled to receive under the terms of their policies and to unfairly minimize the 16 financial exposure and risk of Foremost. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 17 that, prior to their loss, Foremost instituted various internal programs, which were designed to 18 increase profitability by unfairly minimizing the amounts paid to claimants, lowering the 19 combined loss ratio, and turning the claims department into a company profit center. Plaintiffs 20 are further informed and believe and thereon allege that Foremost instituted various corporate 21 programs and policies, which rewarded claims department personnel (directly and indirectly) 22 with pay raises and promotions if they found ways to minimize or eliminate legitimate 23 payments of benefits owed to claimants. By linking the career success and income of claims 24 department personnel to the results achieved in adjusting individual claims, Foremost actively 25 and knowingly encouraged its claim department personnel to engage in fraud, unfair conduct 26 and abuse of legitimate claimants such as plaintiffs. 27 99 Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that Foremost 28 adopted a practice of denying (or delaying payment of)legitimate claims -- such as the subject 6 COMPLAINT 1 claim of plaintiffs - and to support such denials by attempting to create phony “genuine issues 2 regarding coverage and contract liability. Foremost encouraged its consultants and independent adjusters to submit written reports regarding their investigations that were false and misleading 4 with respect to the cause and/or scope of loss and/or the cost of repairing covered damage to 5 claimants' properties. Such conduct by Foremost and its consultants and independent adjusters 6 violates California Penal Code section 550 as well as other California statutes and regulations. 7 23. The acts and omissions of Foremost and its representatives described above were 8 part of the established corporate practices and procedures of Foremost and were directed, 9 approved or ratified by the management of the company. 10 24. In doing the acts described in this Complaint, Foremost acted intentionally, 11 recklessly and with a conscious disregard of the known rights of plaintiffs, and did so in a 12 fraudulent and oppressive manner, all of which warrants the imposition of punitive damages 13 under the guidelines set forth in Civil Code section 3294 in an amount sufficient to discourage 14 Foremost from engaging in similar conduct in the future. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 COMPLAINT 1 7 WHEREFORE,plaintiffs Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston pray for judgment as follows: 4 1. For special damages according to proof; 5 2. For general damages according to proof; 6 J. As to the second cause of action only, for attorneys' fees according to proof; 7 4. As to the second cause of action only, for an award of punitive or exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Foremost Insurance Company Grand 9 Rapids, Michigan and deter it from engaging in similar conduct in the future; 10 5. That plaintiffs be awarded their costs and expenses of suit herein; and 11 6. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 12 JOSEPH A. WEST 13 14 Bxi Jo^^h A. West 15 Attorney for plaintiffs Blake Johnston and Cheryl Johnston 16 17 19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 21 Plaintiffs David C. Barrett and Kimberly Barrett hereby demand trial by jury of all 22 issues raised by the Complaint that may be tried to a jury. 23 JOSEP A. WEST 24 B^^ 25 Joseph A. West Attorney for plaintiffs Blake Johnston and 26 Cheryl Johnston 27 28 COMPLAINT