Wong v. Stillwater Insurance Co.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Stillwater Insurance Company in a dispute over homeowners coverage for embryos allegedly damaged when a cryogenic storage tank failed. The court addressed the policy's requirements of direct physical loss and damage caused by one of sixteen specified perils, including the Wongs' contention that an explosion caused the loss. The trial court properly excluded deposition testimony from an expert who had not been designated in the case, leaving no admissible evidence of a covered peril.

Holdings

1. The Wongs failed to establish a triable issue that the embryos sustained a direct physical loss. Evidence that the embryos might have been damaged, coupled with the physician's statement that there was no way to know whether actual physical damage occurred, was insufficient.
2. The Wongs failed to present admissible evidence that an explosion or another specified peril caused the embryo loss.
3. The trial court properly excluded the selected excerpts from Dr. Kasbekar's deposition and did not consider them as evidence opposing summary judgment.
4. Because the Wongs could not establish their breach-of-contract claim, their claims for breach of the implied covenant, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, specific performance, and unjust enrichment also failed as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Wongs presented evidence creating a triable issue that the embryos suffered a direct physical loss covered by the policy.
2. Whether the Wongs presented admissible evidence that the loss was caused by an explosion or another specified peril under the policy.
3. Whether excerpts from an unsigned deposition taken in separate litigation could be considered to oppose summary judgment where the witness had not been designated as an expert and Stillwater had not received notice of or participated in the deposition.
4. Whether the Wongs' remaining contract-dependent and tort-related causes of action survived when the breach-of-contract claim failed.

Disposition

affirmed