Christopher T Monroe v. GEICO General Insurance Company, 5:14-cv-05174

Background

Monroe purchased a short-term Geico auto policy on Sept. 25–26, 2013; his Lexus was reported stolen within 24 hours of coverage starting.
Geico’s policy required the insured to cooperate in investigations; the SIU investigator requested Monroe’s cell-call and text records (Sept. 1–Oct. 1, 2013) to verify his recorded statement.
Monroe had prepaid cell service, testified he could not afford to upgrade, contacted T‑Mobile, and later provided a store manager letter saying T‑Mobile does not keep records for prepaid customers.
Geico repeatedly requested records; without readable documentation and without the cell records, investigators and a Regional Liability Administrator (RLA) concluded Geico could not complete its investigation and denied the claim.
Monroe sued for breach of contract, unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), fraud, and declaratory relief; both sides moved for summary judgment on various claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraud / promissory fraud	Geico never intended to pay legitimate claims and used cell-records requests as a pretext to deny claims.	Geico investigated in good faith, reasonably requested records, and had no evidence of an intent to defraud.	Summary judgment for Geico on fraud: no evidence of fraudulent intent or misrepresentation.
UCL — fraudulent/unlawful prongs	Geico’s conduct deceived the public and violated statutes (multiple Civil and Insurance Code provisions).	Geico’s investigation and denial were not deceptive or unlawful; Monroe points to no specific statutory violation supported by facts.	Summary judgment for Geico on unlawful and fraudulent UCL theories; denied as to the unfair prong.
UCL — unfair prong	Denial based on unavailable cell records was unfair because records did not exist or were unobtainable.	Geico had a reasonable basis to believe records existed/ were obtainable and reasonably sought them.	Triable issue exists about existence/availability of cell records; UCL unfair claim survives summary judgment.
Breach of contract / implied covenant	Geico breached and acted in bad faith by denying without the requested proof or when records were unavailable.	Denial was proper because Monroe failed to cooperate per policy by not providing cell records; investigation was reasonable.	Competing MSJs denied — genuine dispute of material fact about cell-records availability precludes summary judgment.
Declaratory relief	Monroe seeks declaration that Geico’s proof-burden and proof methods violated the policy.	Declaratory relief is duplicative of breach claims and unnecessary.	Declaratory relief claim dismissed as duplicative of breach claim.

Key Cases Cited

Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard and burdens).
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant’s initial burden and nonmovant must show specific facts).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party; reasonable jury standard).
Behnke v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 196 Cal.4th 1226 (Cal. 2011) (elements of fraud and promissory fraud).
Cel‑Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (standards for UCL fraudulent/unfair/unlawful prongs).
Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1979) (conclusory or speculative testimony insufficient to defeat summary judgment).
Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990) (nonmoving party must produce admissible evidence).
Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 162 Cal.App.4th 1107 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts).
In re Apple In‑App Purchase Litig., 855 F.Supp.2d 1030 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (contractual implied covenant discussion).