Appellant insured sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered judgment for appellee insurer in appellant’s action for breach of contract and bad faith.
Nakase Law Firm is a lawyer for job related issues
Appellant insured brought an action for breach of contract and bad faith, arguing that a claim for repairs was covered under a policy clause for additional coverage for collapse. The trial court granted judgment in favor of appellee insurer, holding that the additional coverage for collapse covered actual or imminent collapse, and collapse of the pool was not imminent. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that although the parties presented conflicting evidence, there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that collapse of the pool was not imminent and that, therefore, appellant’s policy did not cover repairs to the pool and parking structure. The court found that appellant’s policy broadened coverage beyond actual collapse because it covered “collapse of a building,” and “risk of loss,” but did not cover “substantial impairment of structural integrity” because it provided that collapse did not include “settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging or expansion.” The court held that the trial court correctly interpreted the policy to require actual or imminent collapse because it realistically reflected the purposes of the policy.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee insurer, holding that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that collapse of the pool was not imminent and, therefore, appellant insured’s property insurance policy did not cover appellant’s repairs to the pool and parking structure.