Automated Summary
Key Facts
Jillia Mojica sued Spinnaker Insurance Company and Hippo Analytics Inc. for breach of an insurance policy covering water damage from frozen pipes in December 2022. The parties settled for $60,000 on November 4, 2025, with Plaintiff executing the agreement on December 16, 2025. Defendants withheld the settlement check, requiring mortgagee information Plaintiff refused to provide. The court granted Plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement, ordering Defendants to issue the $60,000 check to Plaintiff and her counsel, and denied Defendants' motion.
Transaction Type
Insurance policy dispute settlement
Issues
The court ruled that the settlement agreement did not require the settlement check to include the mortgagee as an additional payee, as the agreement was for the settlement of the lawsuit and not for payment under the insurance policy. Defendants were ordered to issue the check to Plaintiff and her attorney.
Holdings
The court denied Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement (Doc. 60) and granted Plaintiff's motion to enforce (Doc. 62). The court ordered Defendants to issue a settlement check in the amount of $60,000.00 to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel. The court determined that the settlement agreement pertained to the litigation, not insurance policy payments, and that the insurance policy's mortgagee provision did not apply because Defendants had denied all liability under the policy.
Remedies
The court ordered Defendants to issue a settlement check for $60,000 to Plaintiff and counsel, enforcing the parties' settlement agreement. This resolves the dispute over payment terms without requiring mortgagee information.
Contract Value
60000.00
Monetary Damages
60000.00
Legal Principles
Applying basic contract formation principles, the court ruled that the settlement agreement was a separate contract for the litigation, not a settlement under the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance policy's requirement for including a mortgagee as a payee did not apply, and the defendants were ordered to issue the settlement check to the plaintiff and her counsel.
Precedent Name
- Parmalee v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.
- Samuels v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
- Chaganti and Assocs., P.C. v. Nowotny
Key Disputed Contract Clauses
- The homeowners insurance policy contained a clause requiring payment of any loss under Coverage A or B to be made to the mortgagee and the insured. Defendants argued this clause applied to the settlement check, but the court determined that because the settlement was for the litigation (and not for a loss under the policy) and because Defendants denied all liability under the policy, the clause did not apply.
- The settlement agreement included a clause stating that the payment was not to be construed as an admission of liability and that Defendants expressly denied all liability. The court held that this clause, along with the settlement being for the litigation and not the insurance policy, meant that the insurance policy's mortgagee provision did not apply to the settlement terms.
Judge Name
Roseann A. Ketchmark
Passage Text
- Plaintiff has the better argument under the plain and clear language of the Settlement Agreement and Release.
- the settlement agreement reached here did not contemplate and did not effectuate any payment by Defendants under or pursuant to the homeowners insurance policy (and in fact Defendants expressly deny liability—i.e., coverage) but was instead a settlement of this litigation
- It is understood that payment hereunder is not to be construed as any admission of liability and that Defendants expressly deny all liability.
Damages / Relief Type
Compensatory Damages: $60,000