Tuchman

Tuchman v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 390·44 Cal. App. 4th 1607·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 274·96 Daily Journal DAR 5008·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3099
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 1996B077162California3,315 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

This is an appeal on an issue of law: application of an exclusion based upon neglect of insureds in connection with a claim of theft made by the insureds to their homeowners insurance carrier. We conclude the trial court erred in applying the exclusion to the facts presented. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Background

Appellants, Samuel and Betty Tuchman, are collectors of antiques, having acquired numerous items on various trips to Europe. After restoration, they use the antiques in their home or they store them.

In 1985 or 1986, appellants moved from a 10,000-square-foot home to one with only 3,500 square feet. Because of the reduction of space they were required to store a number of their antiques. They owned vacant improved property at 17421 Ventura Boulevard in Encino and shipped a number of antiques to that property for storage. The antiques were stored in various buildings on the property.

Until sometime in 1986, an employee of Mr. Tuchman, Guadalupe Ran-gel, lived on the property. After Mr. Rangel moved, the electricity on the property was turned off and no formal security system was added. The Ventura property became “run down.” The lot was…

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.