Maples

Maples v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Good Law
148 Cal. Rptr. 80·1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1796·83 Cal. App. 3d 641
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 1978Civ. 41409California3,474 words

Opinion

Opinion

White, J.

This is an appeal from the granting of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a declaratory relief action. The action sought a declaration that the plaintiff was covered by insurance for a fire occurring after termination of the policy where the boiler installation work allegedly causing the fire occurred during the policy period. The learned trial judge, Honorable W. G. Watson, Jr., declared that there was coverage, reasoning that the plaintiff’s cause and circumstances “nearly coincide” with those existing in Sylla v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 895 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 38 ], thereby rejecting the authority of Remmer v. Glens Falls Indem. Co. (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 84 [ 295 P.2d 19 , 57 A.L.R.2d 1379 ] and Tijsseling v. General Acc. etc. Assur. Corp. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 623 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 681 ].. Declining to follow Sylla and accepting Remmer and Tijsseling as controlling, we will reverse the judgment. We hold the view in the instant case that the terminology “accidents which occur during the policy period” is not ambiguous as used in the parties’ comprehensive liability policy and further hold the phrase refers not to the time the wrongful…

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.