Gantman
Gantman v. United Pacific Insurance Co.
Opinion
Opinion
Agliano, J.
—In this case we hold that individual members of a homeowners association in a planned residential development have no standing to maintain an action against insurance companies on policies purchased by and issued to the homeowners association managing the development and under which plaintiffs are not insureds. We therefore affirm summary judgment in favor of defendants United Pacific Insurance Company (United) and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) and against plaintiffs Melvyn and Sharon Gantman.
We also affirm the judgment in favor of defendant United on plaintiffs’ separate cause of action to recover on a policy issued to plaintiffs personally. The judgment here is on alternate grounds that (1) the loss occurred outside the period of coverage, or (2) the standard one-year limitation clause in the policy (requiring commencement of suit on the policy within twelve months after inception of loss) barred the action.
Background
The material facts are undisputed.
Plaintiffs own a residence in Vista de Saratoga, a planned development located in San Jose. The development includes 40 residential units and a common area parcel. It is subject to a…