Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00005/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00005-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BACK,

NO. CIV. S-04-5 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

Defendant moves to exclude recovery of the excess judgment.

It acknowledges, however, that under the court’s previous order

relative to a failure to investigate, plaintiff may obtain a

judgment which includes damages up to the policy limits plus

defense costs (asserted to be zero), and extra-contractual damages,

i.e. emotional distress and punitive damages arising out of the

failure to investigate. The court agrees with defendant’s

contention and its concession. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-00005-LKK -CMK Document 79 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Regarding the duty to settle, plaintiff takes issue with the

court’s conclusion, citing and raising for the first time, Allen

v. Allstate Insurance Co., 655 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1981).

While plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct may be viewed as an untimely

motion to reconsider, the court has no desire to commit error

because it refused to take up plaintiff’s contention. Accordingly,

the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant’s motion to preclude recovery of the excess

judgment is GRANTED;

2. The hearing, currently set for September 26, 2005, is

VACATED;

3. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s contention relative

to Allen, supra, within ten days; and

4. Thereafter, plaintiff’s argument, construed as a motion

to reconsider, will stand submitted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 1, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00005-LKK -CMK Document 79 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2