California Court of Appeal

In a coverage dispute against an insurer alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, promissory fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) upon interpreting plaintiff's policy, the policy language was not unclear and did not guarantee to cover plaintiff's loss in its entirety; 2) plaintiffs assertions were insufficient to support a claim for a breach of contract; 3) with no breach of contract, there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 4) the underlying facts established no misrepresentation, negligent or intentional.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/29/2008
• Published 04/29/2008

Judges

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Law Offices of Christian J. Garris and Christian J. Garris for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Robie & Matthai, James R. Robie, Michael J. O'Neill and Natalie A. Kouyoumdjian, Los Angeles;  Hughes & Nunn and Randall M. Nunn, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent.