Adamo

Adamo v. Fire Insurance Exchange

Good Law
162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 489·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 767·219 Cal. App. 4th 1286·2013 WL 5314596
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 2013D062361California3,897 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nares, J.

Plaintiff Vincent Guy Adamo filed a claim under his homeowners policy after a wildfire damaged his 1,000-tree avocado grove, 10,000-gallon water tank, irrigation system, culverts, two woodsheds, and the landscaping on his property. His insurance carrier, defendant Fire Insurance Exchange (FIE), denied coverage for his avocado trees under a commercial use/farming exclusion, but paid him $116,000 for various damages, including the policy’s $53,100 policy limit under “Coverage B” for “other structures.” In this action Adamo asserted he was entitled to additional benefits for damages to the 10,000-gallon water tank, irrigation system, and culverts associated with his avocado growing operation under (1) “Coverage A” for structures that are “attached” to his dwelling; (2) subsection 1 of “Other Coverages” which included “other structures”; or (3) under Coverage A for “building equipment and outdoor equipment used for the service of and located at the Described Location.”

This matter came on for a bench trial on stipulated facts. Following trial the court ruled (1) the water tank, piping and other property were not “attached” for Coverage A to apply; (2) none of the property…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.