The Supreme Court granted review to resolve this dispute over the validity of the weather conditions clause.
#Julian peeler code
Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 645, 648 (2001), had determined that the weather conditions clause violated Insurance Code Section 530 and the efficient proximate cause doctrine. In so holding, the Court of Appeal parted ways with another division of the same appellate district, which a year earlier in Palub v. The Court of Appeal determined that the weather conditions clause did not violate Insurance Code Section 530 ("Section 530") or the efficient proximate cause doctrine because the clause plainly excluded weather conditions, and the limited grant of coverage for losses caused by weather conditions that did not "contribute in any way with" another excluded cause or event did not render the clause invalid or turn it into a coverage provision for all losses caused by weather conditions.
#Julian peeler trial
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's granting of the motion for summary judgment. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, 35 Cal.4th 747, 752 (2005). Hartford successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Julians' policy excluded each of the perils that Hartford identified as the possible efficient proximate causes of the loss, i.e., earth movement, third party negligence, and weather conditions that "contribute in any way with" another excluded cause or event, in this case a landslide. The Julians alleged that the efficient proximate cause of their loss had been third party negligence, weather conditions alone "consisting of sustained rainfall," or collapse not due to flood, and that the policy did not effectively exclude any of these risks. Hartford denied coverage for all but a minor part of the damage suffered by the Julians, pointing to the exclusions in the Julians' policy for acts, errors or omissions in design and construction, earth movement, and weather conditions that "contribute in any way with" another excluded cause or event, in this case a landslide, to produce a loss.Īfter the denial of coverage, the Julians brought suit against Hartford, asserting breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. An engineering expert retained by Hartford concluded that a landslide, triggered by heavy rainfall, brought about the damage to the Julians' house. not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered." Hartford investigated the claim. excluded under Section I-Exclusions or 2. "We insure against risks of direct physical loss to property described in Coverage A and B unless the loss is: 1.
This "open peril" policy provided in relevant part: The Julians had a standard form homeowners insurance policy with Hartford. Soon thereafter, the Julians presented a claim for the damage to their insurer, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company ("Hartford").
The landslide caused a tree to crash into the Julians' house. On February 13, 1998, after heavy rains, a slope above the home of Frank and Carole Julian failed, leading to a landslide.
0 kommentar(er)
