Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00856-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

NO. CIV. S-06-856 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

RICKEY CARL HUERTA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, currently set on the court’s March 12, 2007 law and

motion calendar. Plaintiff Allstate Insurance seeks an

adjudication of its coverage obligations under a homeowner’s

policy. Plaintiff maintains that it is not obligated to defend or

indemnify a civil suit where its insured shot a police officer.

The defendants in this action are Rickey Huerta and Virginia Huerta

(the insureds) and Matthew Tallman (the police officer). Both

Virginia Huerta and Matthew Tallman have filed statements of nonopposition to the pending motion. Rickey Huerta, who is currently

Case 2:06-cv-00856-LKK -KJM Document 42 Filed 03/01/07 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

incarcerated, has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition. 

There is no genuine dispute that the policy contains a

criminal acts exclusion. The policy disclaims coverage for "any

bodily injury or property damage intended by, or which may

reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal

acts or omissions of, any insured person." Decl. of Glen Davis,

Ex. A at 27. Accordingly, Allstate has no duty to defend or

indemnify Mr. or Mrs. Huerta in the underlying action. See Castro

v. Allstate Ins. Co., 855 F. Supp. 1152, 1155-56 (S.D. Cal. 1994)

(granting summary judgment for Allstate under criminal acts

exclusion). Furthermore, because Allstate never had an obligation

to defend the Huertas, although it did so under a reservation of

rights, it is entitled to reimbursement of the defense costs. See

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MT Transportation, 36 Cal. 4th 643, 656

(2005).

The court hereby GRANTS the motion for summary judgment. The

hearing currently set for March 12, 2007 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00856-LKK -KJM Document 42 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 2