Balcal Construction, Inc. v. Berkley Assurance Company
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-02997
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Balcal Construction v. Berkley Assurance, Judge Lin granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss, dismissing Verus but preserving punitive-damages claims.
Balcal Construction, Inc.; Berkley Assurance Company; and Verus Specialty Insurance. Verus was dismissed from the action, while the punitive-damages request against Berkley Assurance Company remained.
What happened
Balcal Construction, Inc. sued Berkley Assurance Company and Verus Specialty Insurance. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the claims beyond a request for punitive damages.
Berkley moved to dismiss. Balcal did not oppose the motion, and the court decided the matter without oral argument, vacating the scheduled hearing.
Judge Rita F. Lin granted in part and denied in part the motion: she dismissed the claims against Verus Specialty Insurance but denied dismissal of the punitive-damages request against Berkley Assurance Company. She also discharged the order to show cause.
The detailed version
- Balcal Construction, Inc. v. Berkley Assurance Company · No. 3:25-cv-02997
- Lin
- May 16, 2025
Background
Balcal Construction, Inc. brought this action against Berkley Assurance Company and Verus Specialty Insurance. The opinion does not explain the underlying dispute or identify the claims other than a request for punitive damages against Berkley Assurance Company.
Berkley Assurance Company moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Balcal did not oppose the motion. The court found that oral argument was unnecessary under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and vacated the hearing scheduled for June 3, 2025.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to the claims against Verus Specialty Insurance and dismissed Verus from the action. It denied the motion to the extent it sought dismissal of the request for punitive damages against Berkley Assurance Company, explaining that a request for punitive damages does not provide a basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court also discharged the order to show cause. The opinion does not state the remaining claims or provide a final resolution of the action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.