JEFFREY JONES, ET AL V. STATE FARM GEN. INS. CO., No. 22-15285 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFFREY M. JONES and SHANNON B. JONES, TRUSTEES OF THE JEFFREY & SHANNON JONES TRUST, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-15285 D.C. No. 4:21–cv–04172–DMR Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Donna M. Ryu, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 14, 2022 San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District Judge. In 2017, landslides on property insured by State Farm General Insurance Company damaged the neighboring property, owned by Jeffrey and Shannon This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. 1 Jones. The Joneses sued State Farm, not under any provision of the State Farm policy, but alleging that State Farm was directly liable for nuisance, trespass, and negligence based on its post-slide management of the site. The district court dismissed the Joneses’ complaint, finding that the Joneses failed to state a claim against State Farm because they alleged no affirmative action that fell outside “the scope of behavior which may be reasonably expected of insurers.” Teague v. Home Ins. Co., 168 Cal. App. 3d 1148, 1153 (1985). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse. Construing as true the Joneses’ allegation that State Farm voluntarily controlled and tortiously managed the landslide site, Teague does not foreclose the Joneses’ direct liability claims at this stage of the proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.