State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tan
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BREWSTER, District Judge.
Plaintiff insurer (State Farm) issued a homeowner’s policy to defendants, Bruce Tan and Rosemarie Tan. When the Tans submitted two claims for theft loss, State Farm sought to examine them separately to resolve its suspicions of possible fraud. The Tans refused to permit State Farm to examine Bruce Tan outside the presence of Rosemarie Tan. State Farm then brought this action for a declaration that it may compel separate examinations. The parties do not dispute the facts; thus, the issue is ripe for summary judgment.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- International Union Of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman Local Union No. 20, Afl-Cio v. Martin Jaska, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Molsbergen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- Wong v. Di GraziaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lidawi v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003
- Ahmadi v. Allstate Insurance Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re Air Passenger Comp. Res. Sys. Antitrust Lit.District Court, C.D. California · 1989
- Barry Brooks, Heston C. King, Stefen Douglas Brooks, Johanna Barton, and Jesse Rodriguez Benavides v. Excellence Mortgage, Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2015
- Mohammad Lidawi and Zeina Mohamad v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003