letter from opposition/meet and confer complete

 they sent this, and we had the "meet and confer" where I stated I would not be able to remove the petition due to its public interest value.

Re: De Herrera v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club, Case No.:

26STCP00952

Dear Mr. De Herrera,

This office represents Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of

Southern California (“IEAC”) in the matter of De Herrera v. Interinsurance Exchange of

the Automobile Club, Case No.: 26STCP00952. Please accept this letter as my formal

attempt to meet and confer with you regarding my concerns with your Petition for Writ of

Mandate, Complaint, and all Causes of Action set forth therein.

For the reasons set forth below, we request that you dismiss your Petition for

Writ of Mandate and Complaint against IEAC. If you are not willing to do this, it is

IEAC’s intention to demurrer to your Petition and the First and Second Causes of Action

therein.

Initially, your Petition for Writ of Mandate is improper. “Because writ review is an

extraordinary remedy, courts generally do not grant writ relief absent extraordinary

circumstances.” Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations v. Superior Court (2023)

94 Cal.App.5th 1025, 1037. In order to obtain relief via a Petition for Writ of Mandate,

you must establish (1) there are no other adequate remedies, (2) the responding party

has a clear ministerial duty, and (3) a correlative beneficial right in the petitioner to the

performance of that duty. Code Civ. Proc. § 1085. Your Petition does not demonstrate

that you have no other adequate remedy. In your Petition, you state that you should not

have to endure a multi-year civil lawsuit. Your perception that a lawsuit for this matter

may take several years does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

Additionally, you have not demonstrated that IEAC violated any “ministerial

duties.” Under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b), the requirement is for a “complete response,” not

to produce a claim file. The letter attached to your Petition from Donna Romero dated

January 26, 2026, is a complete response. Further, Jaime Rodriguez, an IEAC

representative, informed you on January 21, 2026, that your request had been received

and a response would be forthcoming. As stated, the complete response was issued on

January 26, 2026. Thus, the complete response was provided within the requisite

timeframe.De Herrera v. IEAC

Page 2

Furthermore, in your Petition you contend that security footage from

establishments at the location the accident occurred could have exonerated you. As

you seemingly acknowledge in your Petition, there is no requirement that security

footage must be requested or utilized in an insurance claim investigation under 10 CCR

§ 2695.7(d) or any other relevant code section. Thus, your allegation that IEAC did not

pursue a thorough and fair investigation because they did not obtain relevant security

footage is without merit.

California Courts have noted that “[t]he beneficial interest standard “is equivalent

to the federal ‘injury in fact’ test, which requires a party to prove by a preponderance of

the evidence that it has suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest that is “(a)

concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

’ ” Loeber v. Lakeside Joint School Dist. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 552, 567-568.

In your Petition, you assert that without the claim file, you will be “empty handed”

in an administrative hearing to contest the negligent operator point on your DMV record.

However, you have not established a legally protected interest that has been invaded.

Your Petition does not allege that one has a legally protected interest to be free from

negligent operator points added to a DMV record. Further, your Petition does not cite

any California law which entitles one to immediately obtain an auto insurance company

claim file upon request. Thus, based on what is presented in your Petition, you cannot

establish that you have suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is

concrete and actual or imminent.

Additionally, your First Cause of Action for Violation of Ministerial Duties is not

sustainable for the reasons set forth above. Your Petition does not establish that IEAC

did not provide a complete response within the required timeframe, and there is no duty

imposed on insurers to obtain security footage pursuant to an investigation. Therefore,

your First Cause of Action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Finally, your Second Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good

Faith and Fair Dealing does not allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

“[T]here are at least two separate requirements to establish breach of the implied

covenant: (1) benefits due under the policy must have been withheld; and (2) the reason

for withholding benefits must have been unreasonable or without proper cause.” Love v.

Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1151. Your Petition does not state

that benefits under your policy with IEAC were withheld, rather, you allege they were

improperly paid. As a result, you cannot establish that IEAC breached the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Furthermore, California courts have held that the “ ‘performance of an act

specifically authorized by the policy cannot, as a matter of law, constitute bad faith.’ ”

Baldwin v. AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah Ins. Exchange (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th

545, 557-558. The December 26, 2025, email attached to your Petition as “Exhibit Q”De Herrera v. IEAC

Page 3

from Jaime Rodriguez at IEAC, reveals that the policy language in your auto insurance

policy authorizes IEAC to settle a claim as they think appropriate. Thus, IEAC’s actions

in this case cannot, as a matter of law, establish breach of the implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing.

Accordingly, we request that you agree to dismiss your Petition for Writ of

Mandate and your Complaint against IEAC. If you are not agreeable to that, it is IEAC’s

intention to demurrer to your Petition and the First and Second Causes of Action

therein. We must file our responsive pleading by April 15, 2026. Please contact me

immediately so we may further meet and confer on the matter.