Nourishad v. SCPIE Indemnity
Filed 4/19/06 Nourishad v. SCPIE Indemnity CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| KASS KHASHAYAR NOURISHAD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SCPIE INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G035218 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC03242) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory Munoz, Judge. Affirmed.
Ghods Law Firm, Mohammed K. Ghods and William A. Stahr for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Latham & Watkins, Milton A. Miller, Philip M. Midgen and David M. Simonds for Defendant and Respondent SCPIE Indemnity Company.
Michelman & Robinson, Hellar-Ann Hancock and Marc R. Jacobs for Defendant and Respondent Continental Casualty Company.
Plaintiff Kass Khashayar Nourishad appeals from the judgments entered for defendants SCPIE Indemnity Company (SCPIE) and Continental Casualty Company (CNA) following the granting of their summary judgment motions on plaintiff's complaint for breach of insurance contract and insurance bad faith. Plaintiff asserts various procedural and substantive errors as to each motion. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The Underlying Action and Plaintiff's Complaint
Plaintiff is a dentist. In December 2000, he purchased a â€
