Dykstra

Dykstra v. Foremost Insurance

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 361·17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 543·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 278·93 Daily Journal DAR 3617·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2067
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 19, 1993D016082California2,183 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

In this case the liability insurance policies obtained by the plaintiffs provided coverage for “accidents.” Alleged misrepresentations made by the plaintiffs for the purpose of inducing participation in a business venture are not “accidents” within the meaning of those policies. Accordingly the defendant insurer did not owe the plaintiffs any duty to defend them in an action based solely on the alleged misrepresentations.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. Policies

Between 1983 and 1988 plaintiff and appellant Holland Motor Homes Michigan (Holland Michigan) obtained an annual series of “Comprehensive General Liability” (CGL) insurance policies from defendant and respondent Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost). In addition in 1988 Holland Michigan obtained a “Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy.” Plaintiff and appellant Martin J. Dykstra was an additional insured on each of the Foremost policies.

Although the Foremost policies varied in some respects in the coverage they provided Holland Michigan and Dykstra, they all shared the same definition of a covered occurrence: “[A]n accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily…

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.