Guadiana v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 214

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmonds 183 Report and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs 176 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted in part in accordance therewith. This matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Bowman for all remaining pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 9/25/12. (BAC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13

Rosemary Guadiana,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

No. 07-326-TUC-FRZ-LAB
ORDER

14
15

Pending before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

16

Judgment and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that

17

the Plaintiff’s motion be granted in part.

18

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds1 for all pretrial

19

proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States

21

District Court for the District of Arizona.

22

Plaintiff Rosemary Guadiana filed this class action for coverage under her

23

homeowner’s insurance policy, issued by Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,

24

alleging Defendant breached the homeowner’s insurance policy by failing to pay the costs

25

incurred in tearing out and replacing the part of the structure necessary to replace

26

polybutylene piping subsequent to a leak and water damage.

27
1

28

The referral in this case was reassigned to the newly appointed Honorable Magistrate
Judge Leslie A. Bowman on June 22, 2012 (Doc. 209).

1

Plaintiff moves the Court to grant partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of

2

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and issue a ruling on the construction of the insurance

3

contract as follows:

4
5
6
7
8

(1) [T]he tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay
all tear-out costs necessary for an adequate repair of the plumbing system,
even if an adequate repair of the system requires accessing more than the
leaking portion of the system, and (2) there are no policy provisions or
exclusions that limit the coverage of the tear-out provision; thus, as long as
there is a covered loss, State Farm is required to pay all access costs necessary
for an adequate repair of the system.

9

Magistrate Judge Edmonds, after her review and consideration of Plaintiff’s motion,

10

Defendant’s opposition and Plaintiff’s reply thereto, including the parties’ separate

11

statements of fact, issued the present Report and Recommendation, recommending that the

12

District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order granting the

13

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, in part, and interpret the tear-out provision

14

as follows:

15
16
17
18

The tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all
tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered
loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more that the leaking
portion of the system.
(Doc. 183 at 10).

19

The Report and Recommendation provides the factual and procedural background and

20

summary judgment standard for review, and a thorough discussion and analysis of the written

21

terms of the policy at issue and the arguments submitted by the parties for the Court’s

22

consideration.

23

Defendant filed timely objections, requesting the Court reject the Magistrate Judge’s

24

Report and Recommendation, deny Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, and

25

“adopt a correct interpretation of the policy as excluding coverage for tear-out costs beyond

26

those necessary to repair the leak that caused the covered loss and ... hold that, under the

27

policy, [Defendant] is not obligated to pay tear-out costs incurred to remediate a construction

28

material defect that has not, and may never, cause a covered loss.” (Doc. 185 at 12).
-2-

1

In her response to Defendant’s objections, Plaintiff clarifies that the Plaintiffs do not

2

seek coverage for “preventative maintenance” or “upgrades” as Defendant suggests, asserting

3

that the interpretation of the policy provision set forth in the Report and Recommendation

4

is proper, and thus, the Court should accept the recommendation and grant Plaintiff’s motion.

5

(Doc. 187).

6

Defendant filed a reply in support of its objecitons, further advancing its position and

7

arguments in regard to the interpretation of the tear-out provision of the policy, again

8

focusing on the meaning of the terms “repair” and “replace” and the intent of the policy

9

language.

10

The Court finds, after consideration of the matters presented, including the parties’

11

briefs, the Report and Recommendation, the objections, response and reply thereto, and an

12

independent review of the record herein, that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

13

Judge Edmonds on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment shall be accepted and

14

adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court.

15

Based on the foregoing,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmond’s Report and

17

Recommendation [Doc. 183] is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact

18

and conclusions of law by this Court;

19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
[Doc. 176] is granted in part in accordance therewith;

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge

22

Bowman for all remaining pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation in

23

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2.

24
25

DATED this 25th day of September, 2012.

26
27
28
-3-