Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03676/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03676-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GLOBE IMPORTS LIMITED, INC., 

GLOBE PROPERTIES, and ROBERT 

MAXON, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 

INSURANCE CO. and NATIONWIDE 

INSURANCE, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 14-3676 CW 

ORDER ON 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

AND MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE 

(Docket Nos. 56 

and 60) 

 Although the parties did not file dispositive motions in 

accordance with the deadline, the Court permitted them to file 

dispositive motions to be heard at the final pretrial conference, 

less than two weeks before the start of a bench trial. 

The Court makes the following rulings about the scope of the 

trial: 

1. Building 1's Non-Covered Expenses are no longer at issue 

because the parties agree that they are not disputed. The 

trial shall not address the following items: set heater, 

light fixtures, electrical supplies, lighting allowance, 

replacement lighting fixtures, first class drywall, 

replacement of walls and New Life Services. See Docket No. 

Case 4:14-cv-03676-CW Document 80 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

60, Opening Br., at 6; Docket No. 66, Response Br., at 6 & 

n.3.

2. Four of Building 2's expenses relating to costs to comply 

with an ordinance or law are no longer at issue because the 

parties agree that they are not disputed. The trial shall 

not address the following items: fire sprinklers, fire 

sprinklers underground and riser, smoke detectors and fire 

alarm system. Opening Br. at 8-9; Response Br. at 11. 

3. There is no genuine dispute of material fact that a concrete 

handicap ramp that would cost $9,297 for Building 2 falls 

within the exclusion for "walks, patios or other paved 

surfaces." See Docket No. 60-10 Ex. A at 33; Opening Br. at 

9.1 Globe argues that it is entitled to payment for the 

handicap ramp because, under the contract, Nationwide agreed 

to pay for "[w]alks, roadways and other paved surfaces" in 

the event of a collapse. Docket No. 60-10 Ex. A at 56. 

However, the contract provides that Nationwide will pay if 

collapse is caused by decay, insect or vermin damage, weight 

of people or personal property, weight of rain that collects 

on roof, or use of defective material or methods in 

construction. Id. Thus, the Court grants partial summary 

adjudication on this issue in favor of Nationwide.

Nationwide did not meet its initial burden to obtain summary 

adjudication on the following issues for the following reasons: 

 1 Because the Court grants summary judgment, the related 

motion in limine as to the handicap ramp is moot. Docket No. 56 

at 5. 

Case 4:14-cv-03676-CW Document 80 Filed 01/19/16 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. Nationwide did not cite an ordinance or law that would place 

the costs relating to Building 1 under the ordinance or law 

limitation.2

2. Nationwide did not meet its burden to dispose of the list of 

Building 1 items that "do not fall within the Nationwide 

insuring agreement" because it presented no evidence that the 

items were not fire damaged. See Opening Br. at 7. 

3. Nationwide presented no evidence that the Building 1 costs 

purportedly related to excavation actually constituted 

"excavation" warranting exclusion. See Opening Br. at 8.3

4. Nationwide did not cite an ordinance or law that would place 

"utilities hookup" under the ordinance or law limitation, nor 

show that it was a "betterment." 

5. Nationwide has not shown that the geotechnical engineering 

report falls outside of the insuring agreement. 

The Court denies Nationwide's dispositive motion as to the 

following issues because a genuine dispute of material fact 

exists: 

1. Painting expenses for Building 14; 

 2 For the same reason, the Court denies Nationwide's related 

motion in limine. See Docket No. 56 at 3-4. 

3 The Court denies Nationwide's related motion in limine as 

it relates to the charges for "Demo and remove brick footing" and 

"Underground phone work." See Docket No. 56 at 6. 

Case 4:14-cv-03676-CW Document 80 Filed 01/19/16 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2. The tenant's sign on Building 25; 

3. Functional equivalents (primarily the cost of redwood for 

Building 26)7; 

4. Whether "Excavation, Fill, Demo" falls under a coverage 

exclusion and/or relates to a below-surfaced foundation8; 

5. Whether Globe is entitled to payment for depreciation on 

Building 2. 

It is not necessary for the Court to reach the evidentiary 

objections not discussed in this order. Further, because it is 

 4 Nationwide objects to paragraphs seventeen through nineteen 

of the Declaration of Robert Maxon filed in opposition to the 

dispositive motion. Docket No. 79 ¶ 1(o)-(q). The Court agrees 

that Maxon's statement about the painting contractor's testimony 

at trial is inadmissible. However, the Court overrules 

Nationwide's objections relating to Building 1's pre-fire 

condition, Maxon's knowledge of the painting contractor's work and 

the cost of painting a small portion of Building 1 in 2002. 

5 Nationwide filed a motion in limine that relates to the 

sign. See Docket No. 56 at 8. Because it is not clear whether 

this sign was covered property "in or on the building," Docket No. 

60-10 Ex. A at 33, the Court denies the motion in limine as to the 

tenant sign. 

6 The Court declines to address Nationwide's evidentiary 

objections relating to expert witness testimony here; it will 

address those issues at trial based on the witnesses' testimony, 

as needed. 

7 Because the Court will decide at trial how the concept of 

replacement costs applies to Building 2, the Court denies 

Nationwide's related motion in limine. See Docket No. 56 at 1-2. 

8 Relatedly, the Court denies Nationwide's motions in limine 

to exclude evidence of costs for excavation, grading, backfilling 

and filling as to the concrete perimeter foundation, the concrete 

floor slab and the handicap ramp, see Docket No. 56 at 6, as well 

as its motion in limine to exclude evidence of costs relating to 

below-surfaced foundations, see id. at 7. 

Case 4:14-cv-03676-CW Document 80 Filed 01/19/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

not clear from any pretrial filing that Globe seeks recovery for 

replacement of underground pipes, the Court declines to issue a 

ruling on the motion in limine regarding pipe replacement. Docket 

No. 56 at 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 19, 2016 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03676-CW Document 80 Filed 01/19/16 Page 5 of 5