Lui v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:19-cv-06337
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Lui v. State Farm, Judge Beeler granted State Farm’s motion to stay the insurance lawsuit for 90 days while it processed the claim.
The order pauses Lawrence Lui and Goretti Lui’s claims against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company while State Farm continues processing the insurance claim.
What happened
Lui v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company concerns Lawrence Lui and Goretti Lui’s lawsuit over State Farm’s handling of their homeowner’s insurance claim after a serious water loss. They alleged that State Farm delayed or failed to make required payments.
State Farm asked the court to pause the case because it was still processing the claim and had not denied coverage. The plaintiffs opposed the pause, saying they needed money for repairs and could not conduct discovery or obtain a trial date during the stay.
Judge Laurel Beeler granted State Farm’s motion to stay the case for 90 days. The court also set a case-management conference, ordered the parties to file a joint statement, directed them to discuss information useful for mediation, and requested an update after mediation.
The detailed version
- Lui v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · No. 3:19-cv-06337
- Laurel Beeler
- Mar. 22, 2020
Background
Lawrence Lui and Goretti Lui sued State Farm Fire and Casualty Company over State Farm’s handling of an insurance claim arising from a serious water loss at their home on January 26, 2018. The property required asbestos and lead abatement. The plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The plaintiffs alleged that State Farm offered low estimates for abatement, rejected demands, delayed payments for additional living expenses, and delayed approving repairs. As of November 7, 2019, State Farm had paid $1,263,131.26, and it continued paying the plaintiffs $37,500 per month for additional living expenses. State Farm also paid an additional $94,013.45 for personal property on February 8, 2020.
Motion and Analysis
State Farm moved for a short stay because it was nearing the end of its claims-processing work. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the delay would prejudice them because they needed money to complete repairs, needed a judgment to obtain that money, and could not begin discovery or obtain a trial date during the stay.
The court explained that it had discretion to pause the case and should weigh possible harm from the pause, hardship or unfairness from requiring the case to continue, and whether a pause would promote an orderly and efficient resolution. The court concluded that a stay would promote efficiency because State Farm was still processing the claim. It also found that, on the record before it, it could not identify prejudice to the plaintiffs in light of State Farm’s recent payment and continuing payments for additional living expenses.
Ruling
Judge Laurel Beeler granted State Farm’s motion to stay the case for 90 days. The court set the initial case-management conference for June 18, 2020, at 11:00 a.m.; directed the parties to file a joint case-management statement by June 11, 2020; directed them to confer about discovery that could assist mediation; and requested a joint update within seven days after the scheduled mediation if the case had not settled. The order disposed of ECF No. 26.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.