Pieper

Pieper v. Commercial Underwriters Insurance

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 1001·59 Cal. App. 4th 1008·69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 551·97 Daily Journal DAR 14737·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9147
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 5, 1997B106201California4,847 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

Introduction

Plaintiffs, cross-defendants, and appellants James Pieper and Jeanne Ellen Pieper (the Piepers) appeal from judgment entered in favor of defendant, cross-complainant and respondent Commercial Underwriters Insurance Company (CUI).

The action arose from the Old Topanga Canyon fire, which destroyed the Piepers’ collection of rare ceremonial masks. The Piepers filed a claim with CUI under their “all risks” policy. CUI denied coverage pursuant to a “brush fire” exclusion. The Piepers filed an action for breach of insurance contract and for bad faith contending that their loss was caused by the covered peril of arson. CUI cross-complained for declaratory relief contending the brush fire exclusion applied. The Piepers and CUI each brought motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted GUI’s motion and denied the Piepers’ motion, finding that the brush fire exclusion precluded recovery under the all risks policy.

The coverage issue raised by this appeal is whether the fire, which was caused by arson, was a covered risk or an excluded risk under the brush fire exclusion clause of the Piepers’ policy.

We find the exclusion clause was unambiguous and that the…

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.