Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cuadros v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.

United States District Court, District of Nevada

December 23, 2014

LUZ ELENA CUADROS, Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the court is defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (hereinafter “defendant”) motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 27). Plaintiff Luz Elena Cuadros (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed a response, (doc. # 30), and defendant filed a reply, (doc. # 31).

Also before the court is defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Doc. # 28).

I. Background

Plaintiff purchased a car insurance policy from defendant, which included collision coverage. (Doc. # 23). If plaintiff’s vehicle was involved in a collision, defendant agreed to pay either the cost to repair the vehicle or its “actual cash value.” (Doc. # 27).

On February 12, 2013, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Doc. # 23). She then made a claim for property damage to her vehicle. (Doc. # 23). Defendant used a third-party valuation service to evaluate plaintiff’s vehicle. (Doc. # 23).

Defendant declared plaintiff’s vehicle a “total loss, ” and determined that the vehicle’s actual cash value was $15, 547. (Doc. # 23). Plaintiff claims that defendant has failed to issue her a final claim payment. (Doc. # 23).

Plaintiff’s policy includes a mandatory appraisal provision, which states: “If there is disagreement as to the actual cash value of the covered vehicle, then the disagreement will be resolved by appraisal upon written request of the owner or us . . . .” (Doc. # 27).

The policy also includes a “legal action against us” provision, which provides: “Legal action may not be brought against, nor may arbitration be demanded of, [defendant] until there has been full compliance with all the provisions of this policy.” (Doc. # 27).

On July 29, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative class action in this court on diversity grounds. (Doc. # 23). Plaintiff contends that defendant undervalued plaintiff’s vehicle. (Doc. # 23). She brings claims for negligence per se, unfair claim practices, deceptive trade practices, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and injunctive and declaratory relief. (Doc. # 23).

On October 22, 2014, defendant sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel invoking its contractual right to appraisal. (Doc. # 27). Defendant then filed the instant motion.

II. Legal Standard

i. Judicial notice

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides for judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Under Rule 201(b)(2), the court may “judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2).

Rule 201(c)(2) states that the court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(c)(2). Finally, Rule 201(d) provides that “[t]he court may take judicial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.