[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:02] Speaker 03:
Thank you for mentioning that.

[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
I know everyone here is prayers are with all of the people who have been devastated by the fires.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
I'd like to reserve five minutes if I may.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
I believe the underlying focus of the court down below was misplaced.

[00:00:23] Speaker 03:
The underlying focus of the court below was, was it reasonable for Geico to ask

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
for proof of medical bills.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
I believe what the focus should have been was, what did Geico already know?

[00:00:37] Speaker 03:
What could they have reasonably discovered if they had done an investigation over the year before the demand letter came in?

[00:00:44] Speaker 03:
And also, what did they conclude before they got the demand letter?

[00:00:50] Speaker 03:
All of these are addressed in footnotes in the underlying opinion and not really fleshed out for the court.

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
What did Geico know?

[00:00:59] Speaker 03:
Well, they could have gotten an unredacted police report.

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
They had a year to do that.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
They had every right to do it.

[00:01:06] Speaker 03:
They're insured, has a duty to cooperate with them.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
She had a right to an unredacted police report.

[00:01:13] Speaker 03:
They could have gotten her to sign something to allow them to get it unredacted, and they didn't.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
Had they obtained the unredacted police report, much like in the demand letter, they would have learned that it said major head injury.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
They failed to do that.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
Police reported they had reviewed it closely, unconscious, not responsive, major injury, severe, pools of blood noted in the streets.

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
They took their client's statements.

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
They knew he was unresponsive at the scene, and they knew liability was not a question.

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
The Geico note before they even took her statement was in early August, about a month

[00:01:59] Speaker 03:
After this accident, he was unresponsive at the scene, and it was possible fatality.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
Due to the severity of those injuries, what did Geico do?

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
They sent it to their continuing unit, which deals with their biggest damage cases, their most senior adjusters who understand litigation and understand damages.

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
What does she do?

[00:02:30] Speaker 03:
In September 20th, about two months after this accident, she reviews the file and she calls Ms.

[00:02:35] Speaker 03:
Zavala, the insurer.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
We don't think you have enough.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
I have to send you an excess letter because you might be on the hook.

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
She also assures her, as is her obligation, if we can get this settled within your policy limits, we will.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
Counsel, you know, my personal experience is irrelevant, but I don't think I've ever seen an insurance case with major damages and injuries where the insurance company wasn't asking for medical bills.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
Is California, is there a standard practice of not asking for them if the damage numbers look really high?

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
Was there any evidence of that below that you don't even need to ask or if you don't get them, you can just pay without getting the medical bills?

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
Is that a standard practice in California insurance adjudication?

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, yes.

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
And I would also say that

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
The issuance of CCP 999 shows that there was standards that were sort of loose, and the insurance industry understood based upon their desire to have CCP 999 come into effect.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
And I will tell this court, if you look into CCP 999, I was president-elect of the plaintiff's bar at that time, and I negotiated that.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
I was on the team that negotiated that.

[00:04:15] Speaker 03:
McGranahan was a case that I had in mind when we negotiated it.

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
That is why 999 says it doesn't, it's not retroactive, it goes forward and gives standards that now allow for and say you need to provide information, but it also says because of McGranahan that

[00:04:35] Speaker 03:
This doesn't apply to pro-PERS because pro-PERS don't understand these things, Your Honor.

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
So the law at that time was pre-CCP 999, which like Intagon, they would have and could have if they knew and conclude the policy limits not going to be enough, they need to pay.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
Did that answer your question?

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
I just wanted to make sure I answered Judge Bennett's question.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
You did.

[00:05:02] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:05:04] Speaker 04:
So you mentioned the pro-PER status, but at some point he got counsel, and counsel didn't provide the medical records.

[00:05:12] Speaker 04:
I'm having trouble understanding that.

[00:05:13] Speaker 04:
Can you speak to that at all?

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
I can, Your Honor.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
They did come see me, as is in the brief in April.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
I told them it was a slam dunk case.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
I told them to send a letter.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
I told them what to put in it.

[00:05:25] Speaker 03:
I told them to give a firm deadline.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
By the time they hired counsel,

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
The deadline had passed.

[00:05:32] Speaker 03:
Their ability to settle within the policy limits under California law was already passed.

[00:05:40] Speaker 03:
It is irrelevant that after the demand, after the extent of the date of pay by this day passed, it becomes irrelevant that now they have a lawyer and the lawyer gives them the medical bills, because if they offer it under California law, they've already expired their time.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
They don't have the ability now to go back and say, oh, by the way, even though we were supposed to pay by August 20th, it's now September 15th, we now have this information we're going to offer it.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
They should have offered it before.

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
And the fact that a council comes in after the deadline of the demand under the cases, that's too late.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
I mean, I hate to use the term red herring, but it is a red herring to say,

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
Well, the demands now expired.

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
Now they got attorneys.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
Now we can offer it.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
It doesn't matter at that point.

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
You're in litigation.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
You should have offered it before.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
Does that answer your question?

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
Judge Friedland, does that answer your question?

[00:06:38] Speaker 04:
I mean, it partly does, but it seems a little bit like game playing if the issue is when counsel was hired, because it seems like they had talked to counsel before the letter.

[00:06:47] Speaker 04:
So I'm just still having trouble understanding, like if you were trying to set this up as a test case or what was going on, like why not send?

[00:06:57] Speaker 04:
I just don't understand why there wasn't either sending medical records or sending a signature that they could obtain the medical records.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
Well, as I indicated, and I think this gets a little beyond the record, when they came and saw me, I looked at the police report and said, this is a slam dunk.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
They need to pay you.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
But that was it.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
You don't need to pay me to go forward.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
That's a waste of money.

[00:07:18] Speaker 03:
Why am I going to take a percentage of this case?

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
This is a slam dunk.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
Send a letter, put these types of things in it, and they're going to pay you.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
And if they don't, come back and see me, right?

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
Because at that point, they're in bad faith.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
That was the meeting that they came and saw me.

[00:07:33] Speaker 03:
I literally said, you don't need me.

[00:07:36] Speaker 03:
They'll pay you.

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
And if they don't, then come see me.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
And that's what happened.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
Council, it looks like with regard to the extensive medical bills that Medi-Cal cut them down like 80%, 90%, something like that.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
And there are notes in the GEICO records that are part of the record that

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
prepaying that said, you know, Medi-Cal typically cuts bills huge amounts.

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
Is there any oral that that's true?

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
That is true, and the adjuster knew that.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
When she talked to Ms.

[00:08:20] Speaker 03:
Porter, Ms.

[00:08:20] Speaker 03:
Porter said, we're applying for Medi-Cal.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
The adjuster knew how.

[00:08:25] Speaker 00:
So she knew, even without looking at the medical bills, that whatever the number was, the ultimate amount that your client was going to have to pay could be as much as a 90% reduction.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
She did know that.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
And after she knew that, what did she write in the file?

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
She wrote in the file these exact words.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
Policy limits are not going to be enough.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
The bills alone will likely be in excess of the policy limits.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
So she knew, by the way, she was Nostradamus because she is a senior adjuster.

[00:09:03] Speaker 03:
She knew the bills were going to be over 100, even with a Medi-Cal reduction, and they were 130 when they actually got them later.

[00:09:11] Speaker 03:
So she knew it was going to be above.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
But the key word here, Your Honor, is alone.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
The bills alone.

[00:09:18] Speaker 03:
When the demand letter came in, so she knew there was more that they were entitled to.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
When the demand letter came in, what does it say?

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
It says, I will have significant future medical costs, future, as well as not be able to continue working at my own gardening and landscaping business.

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
Now with the police report, she can look at his age,

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
and figure if this is true, which, by the way, is 100% consistent with what she learned from this order, that my client's loss of earnings alone over a three-year period, if he just made $35,000, is going to be more than $100,000 policy.

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
This is why she- You're looking at the letter starting at ER 173?

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
I believe so, Your Honor, yes.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
Is there anything in there that even estimates what the loss of income is?

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
Like, I make $10,000 a year, I make 30, I make 40, I've lost, I've been out of work now for almost a year and I've lost 20,000, 30,000, 40,000.

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
Is there any number in there at all?

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, but that is why the term the medical bills alone or the bills alone, because she knew the bills alone would be over 100 and they turned out to be 130.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
And she then knew when the demand letter came in that he wasn't able to work.

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
So adding those two together, she knew based upon the severity of the head injury that that was over their policy.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
And I believe I'm out of time unless the court has other questions.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
I do have one question.

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
You've been saying 130, but I actually thought it was 323,000 approximately at ER 181 because that's the Medi-Cal lean amount.

[00:11:06] Speaker 04:
I was wondering if the 130 is the hospital and then there's also some sort of rehabilitation bill.

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, I believe 130 was the hospital bill alone.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
The bills were much higher than that.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
They were, you're right.

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
The hospital bill alone.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
which she knew when she talked to Miss Porter, who's the girlfriend, she's demanding a girlfriend to turn into medical records.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
She doesn't know whether the girlfriend stays with him.

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
I thought it was interesting that under capital specialty, they elevated it to the policy limit might not be enough because they've gone radio silent and that guy didn't have a brain injury.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
In this case, my client has a brain injury and they asked the girlfriend who doesn't have the right under HIPAA laws to get this information to provide it to him.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
So, Your Honor, I'm out of time again.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
Any questions?

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
I have a comment.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
Counsel.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
If you fully answered the questions that Judge Freeland asked you, and the Judge Bennett asked you, do you want to reserve the rest of your time for rebuttal?

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
I do, Your Honor.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
Okay, then we'll proceed to hear from the appellee.

[00:12:23] Speaker 05:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:12:25] Speaker 05:
Arzu Jamshidi on behalf of Appellee and Defended Geico Indemnity Company.

[00:12:32] Speaker 05:
Your Honors, the court did correctly focus its decision here by determining that despite all the evidence that plaintiff put forth, despite claiming that the insurer should have known

[00:12:53] Speaker 05:
the extent of the injuries.

[00:12:55] Speaker 05:
Ultimately, there was absolutely no evidence put forth by plaintiff quantifying the plaintiff's injuries.

[00:13:03] Speaker 05:
And I think that's where the sticking point is here.

[00:13:06] Speaker 05:
And that is exactly what the case is, including Capital Specialty, even Entagon, and Sprodling all say that the importance is how you can quantify the plaintiff's injuries.

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
Council, let me just push back on that a little.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
The moment the adjuster got the redacted police report, they knew that the plaintiff had been very, very seriously injured.

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
At ER 126,

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
sometime after the accident, they knew he might have died, possible fatality.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
And I mean, just given the nature of the accident, that he was on a motorcycle, that he wasn't wearing a helmet, even with Prop 213, I'm having some difficulty understanding how a reasonable adjuster, just immediately looking at this case,

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
wouldn't have said, our policy limit, even with Prop 13, is 100.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
There is no possibility this case is going to come in at under 100.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
And so, I mean, I know it's routine to ask for medical records.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
It's routine to ask for economics.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
But the number compared to what they knew

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
Day one is so low, it's hard for me to see how the conclusion shouldn't have been immediately.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
I mean, putting aside just a minute bad faith, but the conclusion shouldn't have been immediately.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
We're never coming in under policy limits, given how injured this poor man was.

[00:15:00] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, the evidence actually shows, and I believe Judge Freeland touched upon this with the difference between the numbers of the 130 and the 320, and I think that difference is timing.

[00:15:15] Speaker 05:
So the 130 number was what they received in 2017 when they finally received backup

[00:15:25] Speaker 05:
and corroborating evidence regarding the medical bills.

[00:15:28] Speaker 05:
And they received the medical records.

[00:15:32] Speaker 05:
It showed that even despite all of these injuries up until 2017, the lien was 130.

[00:15:37] Speaker 05:
So that's not that far off from the policy limits of 100, Your Honor.

[00:15:43] Speaker 05:
So it was reasonable for them to question at that point.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
but but didn't the girlfriend fairly early on tell them how long he was in the hospital he was in ICU he was on

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
A ventilator, I might be misremembering that.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
Some sort of tracheotomy or tracheostomy, I may be misremembering that too.

[00:16:07] Speaker 00:
But very serious and even exclusive of this huge number from a hospital stay that Medi-Cal's going to really kick down.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
I mean, wouldn't they also be on notice that for injuries like this,

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
The bills don't stop when he's discharged from the hospital after seven weeks, or however many weeks it was.

[00:16:32] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, even if that was, again, the point is, is that even despite how serious these injuries were, they still hadn't received any corroborating evidence.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
And this is also- Sorry, corroborate, corroborate, I don't mean interrupt, I'm sorry, but corroborating evidence of what?

[00:16:53] Speaker 05:
of the quantification of plaintiff's injuries.

[00:16:58] Speaker 05:
And that's what the courts have emphasized numerous times.

[00:17:01] Speaker 05:
If you look at the Spradling case, Your Honor, they actually had a lot of information, a lot more information certainly than this case.

[00:17:10] Speaker 05:
The Spradling case, there was a lot of back and forth between plaintiffs council even, between plaintiffs and the insurer.

[00:17:19] Speaker 04:
I just need to interrupt you here because I'm struggling with the fact that the briefs mostly cite federal district court cases and we're applying California law.

[00:17:27] Speaker 04:
So that district court case might have been wrong.

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
I mean, unless you can cite a California case that has some facts like this with this serious an injury that shows that it's reasonable to keep insisting on for the medical bills instead of just making some assessment of what kind of bills there would be for such injuries.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
I don't know that setting district court case is going to help you.

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
So do you have any California cases that say this?

[00:17:54] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, no, I have not found any California cases, but we do have the statute, the statute that has actually been enacted and is now in full force, CCP 999.

[00:18:08] Speaker 05:
And I know that was mentioned by plaintiffs' counsel.

[00:18:12] Speaker 05:
And in that case, they basically do say that there is a need for medical documentation and medical bills.

[00:18:20] Speaker 05:
But it's not retroactive, right?

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
Why would they make it not retroactive unless there was a change?

[00:18:29] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, I think this was the trend that the legislature wanted to go in.

[00:18:35] Speaker 05:
I know a lot of statutes that aren't retroactive, but this is now the law here in California.

[00:18:42] Speaker 05:
This is what they wanted.

[00:18:43] Speaker 05:
And I know there was a mention about the 999 doesn't apply because the plaintiff wasn't

[00:18:54] Speaker 05:
represented by council but that's not true the plaintiff was it doesn't apply because it's before the time of the enactment i mean it's before the the date when the law went into effect is why it doesn't apply right um that's correct but there there are no california cases also stating that they don't need medical uh corroborating medical records there's no i guess i'm just looking at so do you agree that the standard

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
under Kransko, which is California Supreme Court, is that the insurer must settle within policy limits when there is a substantial likelihood of recovery in excess of those limits.

[00:19:31] Speaker 04:
Do you agree that's the test?

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
We may have lost counsel.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
Yes, Judge.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
It appears we've lost counsel.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
Please stand by.

[00:19:49] Speaker 02:
We might want to note the time.

[00:19:51] Speaker 02:
Oh, sorry.

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
I want to make sure she has her time.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
Council is returning.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
Please stand by.

[00:20:21] Speaker 05:
I sincerely apologize, Your Honor, as my computer just completely rebooted out of nowhere.

[00:20:26] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry, Judge Freeland, you were.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
I'll ask the question again.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
So I understand.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
So Kransko is the California Supreme Court saying that standard is the insurer must settle within policy limits when there is a substantial likelihood of recovery in excess of those limits.

[00:20:40] Speaker 04:
Do you agree that's the standard?

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
That is the standard, yes.

[00:20:43] Speaker 04:
OK, and so this is a summary judgment case.

[00:20:45] Speaker 04:
So isn't the only

[00:20:48] Speaker 04:
question that we would need to decide whether a reasonable jury could think that on these facts, the plaintiff might win.

[00:20:56] Speaker 04:
I mean, I don't even know that we need to say the plaintiff does win.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
For summary judgment, don't we just need to say there's a fact dispute here about whether there's a substantial, the insurer should have known that there's a substantial likelihood of recovery beyond the limits.

[00:21:09] Speaker 04:
Is that what we need to decide today?

[00:21:11] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than that.

[00:21:14] Speaker 05:
The standard also goes on further to say that in determining whether an insurer has acted unreasonably, whether the conduct actually has been deliberate, and then there's been a conscious and deliberate act.

[00:21:33] Speaker 05:
It can't just be based on an honest mistake or a bad judgment or negligence.

[00:21:38] Speaker 05:
There has to be something more deliberate there.

[00:21:40] Speaker 05:
But this was deliberate, right?

[00:21:43] Speaker 04:
I mean, is there any question that the, I mean, we know, could a jury looking at this record see what Ms.

[00:21:50] Speaker 04:
Porter said, what the police, even though it was redacted, said, and have a question about whether deliberately the insurer didn't pay, even though there was a substantial likelihood?

[00:22:00] Speaker 04:
I mean, I'm having trouble, I can see how a jury might rule for you ultimately, but I'm having trouble seeing how there isn't at least a fact dispute here.

[00:22:09] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, again, I think the important part is also timeframe, right?

[00:22:14] Speaker 05:
So when you're looking at a bad faith case here and determining, especially when you're looking at a bad faith failure to settle, you have to look at the time that they were actually given that settlement demand, right?

[00:22:25] Speaker 05:
They were given that settlement demand.

[00:22:27] Speaker 05:
All the information they had were from non-corroborating sources.

[00:22:32] Speaker 05:
right?

[00:22:32] Speaker 05:
Yes, the police report said that there were severe injuries.

[00:22:37] Speaker 05:
It certainly didn't say, I know there was some mention about blood being on the ground.

[00:22:40] Speaker 05:
It certainly didn't mention any of that.

[00:22:43] Speaker 04:
That gets into once you know, once the insurer knows as much as the insurer knew here, why not go out and try to get the information in some way other than calling the girlfriend?

[00:22:55] Speaker 04:
I mean, it seems like you could show up at the hospital and ask for the signature for

[00:23:00] Speaker 04:
getting the rest of the records or ask something about what's happening or try to see him and see if he's that badly injured.

[00:23:06] Speaker 04:
There are a lot of different things that could have been done once you have enough information to realize this could be very serious.

[00:23:12] Speaker 04:
I'm not understanding why from the fact that you didn't do that, the jury could infer that there was bad faith here.

[00:23:22] Speaker 05:
Um, Your Honor, the standard for bad faith does not require the insurer to have a perfect investigation to do, you know, everything.

[00:23:31] Speaker 05:
It's a much more

[00:23:34] Speaker 05:
a high degree standard here.

[00:23:38] Speaker 05:
It's not based on negligence.

[00:23:40] Speaker 05:
It's not based on a bad judgment.

[00:23:42] Speaker 05:
Even if it was a bad judgment that they didn't go to the hospital to get the signature, that's not what the standard is.

[00:23:49] Speaker 05:
It has to be a deliberate and conscious act.

[00:23:52] Speaker 05:
And the information here

[00:23:56] Speaker 05:
even with the severity of the injuries, they would simply be speculating at this point how much.

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
Council, I'm looking at ER 133, which are some of the adjuster's notes.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
and September 2014, referencing a call with the girlfriend, and she says he was in the hospital for seven weeks.

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
He was then transferred to rehab.

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
He's still there.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
He was in ICU for two of the seven weeks.

[00:24:31] Speaker 00:
He was on a ventilator, had a tracheostomy.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
He then got this MRSA infection, severe head trauma, broken jaw, broken arms that required plates and screws.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
Is there anything in the record which suggests that Geico had any reason to believe that what's in those notes was untrue as of September 22, 2014?

[00:24:58] Speaker 05:
Not necessarily, Your Honor, but to the extent that we can take everybody at their word, there wouldn't be any lawsuits.

[00:25:06] Speaker 05:
The insurer's not required to put, they're not supposed to put their interest above the insured, but they're not also supposed to basically not have their own interest in mind.

[00:25:21] Speaker 05:
And I think it was completely reasonable for them to ask for any corroborating information here.

[00:25:26] Speaker 00:
But that wasn't exactly my question.

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
So insurance companies often, when they suspect that they are hearing something that's untrue, they have various means to do things to take a quick look and see if something just doesn't smell right.

[00:25:44] Speaker 00:
Is there anything in the record here

[00:25:47] Speaker 00:
that suggested that vis-a-vis the severity of the injuries, I'm not talking about the numbers attached to them, but vis-a-vis the severity of the injuries as reflected in what the girlfriend said on her about September 22 was untrue or that they questioned the veracity of the girlfriend.

[00:26:04] Speaker 05:
There's nothing in the record, Your Honor, as to showing that the girlfriend's

[00:26:13] Speaker 05:
the information that the girlfriend provided was untrue.

[00:26:15] Speaker 05:
But again, I would say that the insurer was completely reasonable in asking for that backup.

[00:26:26] Speaker 05:
I think that, again, I know that Judge Freeland was mentioning that they're

[00:26:33] Speaker 05:
We're relying on district court cases, but these district court cases do indicate that such information, even coming from a third party or a family member of the third party that was insured, wasn't enough.

[00:26:49] Speaker 05:
The court came out and said, that's not corroborating evidence.

[00:26:53] Speaker 05:
And then they can request that.

[00:26:55] Speaker 05:
And no matter how severe these injuries were, it was complete speculation

[00:27:00] Speaker 05:
To determine that this insured was going to obtain You know damages above a hundred especially because this insured was a prop two one three Those damages were very limited and they knew that very very early on in their investigation and I would say that there is no responsibility on behalf of the insurer to

[00:27:23] Speaker 05:
to settle a claim, you know, before it receives a settlement demand.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
I think the... Council's Judge Gould, if I could interject.

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
One question.

[00:27:32] Speaker 01:
Does a bad faith claim under California law require subjective bad faith, or is there an objective standard?

[00:27:45] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, I believe it is an objective standard.

[00:27:50] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:27:51] Speaker 05:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:27:54] Speaker 05:
So I think the limitations here, I mean, they knew very early on.

[00:27:58] Speaker 05:
They didn't have to.

[00:27:59] Speaker 05:
I mean, they were trying to get this information from the insured from day one.

[00:28:04] Speaker 05:
And it looks like I've run out of time, Your Honors.

[00:28:06] Speaker 05:
If there's any other questions, I may answer.

[00:28:10] Speaker 01:
Let me just ask this.

[00:28:12] Speaker 01:
I have no further questions.

[00:28:14] Speaker 01:
But do Judge Bennett or Judge Friedland have more questions they'd like to hear from the appellee on?

[00:28:25] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
Thank you for asking Judge Cool.

[00:28:29] Speaker 01:
Okay well hearing none then I think we'll permit a brief rebuttal.

[00:28:45] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:28:46] Speaker 03:
I believe the court has hit the nail on the head.

[00:28:49] Speaker 03:
This is a motion for summary judgment.

[00:28:51] Speaker 03:
Is there a question of fact?

[00:28:54] Speaker 03:
And in answer to Judge Bennett's question to counsel, in September, after the adjuster speaks to Ms.

[00:29:04] Speaker 03:
Porter, the following words are written in the claim file.

[00:29:12] Speaker 03:
Policy limits are not going to be enough.

[00:29:15] Speaker 03:
the bills alone will likely exceed the policy limits.

[00:29:21] Speaker 03:
That is a question of fact that they knew nine months before and they were right because she's a senior adjuster.

[00:29:30] Speaker 03:
And a jury should be able to answer whether or not, based upon that note alone, they deliberately failed in their obligation to miss a bottle.

[00:29:40] Speaker 03:
Without further questions, I will rest.

[00:29:45] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Council.

[00:29:47] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors, for this time.

[00:29:49] Speaker 01:
McGranny and Vicalco shall now be submitted, and the parties will hear from the panel in two course.

[00:29:57] Speaker 01:
I want to also

[00:29:59] Speaker 01:
remarked that he appreciated the excellent arguments on both sides of the case.

[00:30:06] Speaker 01:
And we again thank counsel in these excruciating times for making it possible to have an oral argument by video.

[00:30:21] Speaker 01:
So thank you.