…And The Ability To Finally Obtain Justice For Child Mauled By Pitbull
Trial is scheduled to begin on November 10, 2025, in Alameda Superior Court in Y.L. et al., v. Truck Insurance Exchange, et al., Case No. 24 CV063297. Pillsbury & Coleman filed the lawsuit in February 2024, alleging that Truck Insurance Exchange, a member of the massive Farmers Insurance Group of Companies, wrongfully refused to defend its insured, Patricia Aguinaga, in an underlying action brought by Y.L., a minor, and his mother, that resulted in a $10 million judgment against Ms. Aguinaga. In the underlying action, Y.L. and his mother sued Ms. Aguinaga after her Pitbull escaped her townhome at The Cottages complex in Dublin, CA and severely mauled Y.L. as he and his mother were walking by.
Read Court Orders:
As a member of The Cottages’ homeowners’ association, Ms. Aguinaga had liability insurance through Truck. Truck’s policy provided Aguinaga coverage for any liability “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or repair” of The Cottages’ common area. For decades, California courts have instructed that the phrase arising out of must be broadly construed, requiring “only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” Although Truck learned that the Pitbull escaped because Ms. Aguinaga’s mother had left the townhome’s door open while she was sweeping the common area sidewalk, clearly triggering coverage, Truck nonetheless repeatedly denied coverage, abandoning Ms. Aguinaga and subjecting her to massive personal exposure.
In advance of the upcoming trial, Pillsbury & Coleman has obtained three significant ruling from the trial court, paving the way for the upcoming trial:
- The Court Rules That Truck Owed Aguinaga A Defense
In August 2024, we filed a motion for summary adjudication, seeking a ruling that Truck owed Aguinaga a defense in the underlying dog mauling litigation. As reflected in the documents that had been provided to Truck, Aguinaga’s dog got out because her mother had to maintain The Cottages’ common area. Thus, there was clearly a “minimal causal connection or incidental relationship” between maintenance of the common area and the dog mauling. The dog got out because Aguinaga’s mother had to do The Cottages’ job of maintaining the sidewalk. The Court agreed, ruling on November 7, 2024 that Truck owed a duty to defend Aguinaga. Truck’s failure to provide that defense breached the insurance policy. The Court’s ruling that Truck breached the policy narrowed the remaining issues in the case to bad faith and punitive damages.
- The Court Rejects Truck’s “Genuine Dispute” Defense
With the Court having determined that Truck breached the policy, Truck moved for summary adjudication on our bad faith claim in April 2025. Truck argued that there was a so-called “genuine dispute” as to coverage and that it could therefore not be held liable for bad faith. The touchstone for bad faith is whether the insurance company acted unreasonably in denying the claim. In our opposition, we set forth evidence showing that Truck lied to Aguinaga, failed to investigate facts relevant to her claim, and did no legal research before denying her claim. Based on the evidence we presented, the Court denied Truck’s motion, concluding that the reasonableness of Truck’s conduct was a question of fact for the jury.
- The Court Dismisses Truck’s “Fraud and Collusion” Defense
Truck’s primary defense in this case was that the underlying judgment was the product of so-called “fraud or collusion.” Truck has claimed that Aguinaga colluded with Y.L and his mother to allow the judgment to be entered against her. This defense, however, has no basis in fact or law. California courts have repeatedly held that when an insurance company abandons its insured, the insured is entitled to take steps to protect herself, including by entering a settlement that allows the claims against her to be resolved through an uncontested trial. That is exactly what happened here. The underlying claims were resolved through a trial proceeding before Judge Kaus of Alameda County Superior Court. Judge Kaus determined that Aguinaga was liable for the dog attack and determined the amount of damages to be $10 million. In August 2025, the Court thus ruled that Truck had no evidence that the judgment was the product of any form of collusion and dismissed Truck’s primary defense in this case.
Upcoming Trial
Trial in this case is set for November 10, 2025, before The Honorable Judge Sarah Sandford Smith of Alameda County Superior Court. The jury will be instructed that Truck has already been found to have breached its insurance contract. The primary two issues for the jury to decide will be the unreasonableness of Truck’s conduct and whether Truck’s blatant disregard of Aguinaga’s right to a defense warrants punitive damages.