Vopatek v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
3:23-cv-01221
| S.D. Cal. | Aug 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Vopatek sued USAA Casualty Insurance for denial of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage after an accident while he was not logged into the Uber Eats app.
- USAA initially denied coverage based on an exclusion for vehicles used to carry persons for a fee, asserting Plaintiff was logged in to Uber Eats, citing info from Progressive/Third Parties.
- Plaintiff argued he was not logged in at the time and that USAA failed to properly investigate by not obtaining definitive Uber driver logs until after the lawsuit began.
- Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (bad faith), and sought punitive damages based on pattern and practice.
- The dispute focused on Plaintiff’s motion to compel USAA to respond to certain discovery requests about USAA’s handling of similar claims and complaints alleging improper investigation of ride-share status.
- The Court evaluated the relevance and proportionality of Plaintiff’s requests under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), considering burden and access to information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery of similar claims (RFP 21/Int. 11) | Relevant to show pattern/practice of failing to obtain driver logs | Requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant | DENIED without prejudice due to disproportionate burden |
| Discovery of complaints re: investigation (RFP 22/Int. 12) | Relevant to show bad faith and support punitive damages | Did not adequately argue relevance or burden | GRANTED, limited to California, with redactions |
| Proportionality and burden of discovery | USAA's burden unsupported/implausible; only targeted info sought | No feasible search method; would require manual review, impractical | USAA's burden supported as to RFP 21/Int. 11; not as to RFP 22/Int. 12 |
| Use of Colonial Life precedent for pattern discovery | Colonial Life supports discovery of insurer’s pattern of conduct | Colonial Life not controlling; only Plaintiff's claim at issue | Pattern/practice discovery permitted, but only as proportional |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 785 (Cal. 1982) (discovery of insurer's handling of other similar claims relevant to show bad faith and punitive damages)
- Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co., 42 Cal. 4th 713 (Cal. 2007) (covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in insurance contracts)
- McCoy v. Progressive W. Ins. Co., 171 Cal. App. 4th 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (bad faith can arise from failure to properly investigate a claim)
- Egan v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 24 Cal. 3d 809 (Cal. 1979) (insurer must give equal consideration to interests of insured in handling claims)
- Downey Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 189 Cal. App. 3d 1072 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (bad faith can result in tort liability for insurers)