Jordan

Jordan v. Allstate Insurance

Good Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169·116 Cal. App. 4th 1206·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 351·2004 Daily Journal DAR 3447·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2357
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 2004B164112California6,890 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

Appellant Mary Ann Jordan seeks the reversal of a summary judgment granted to the respondent Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) on her first amended complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and declaratory relief. The trial court determined that the homeowner’s insurance policy issued by Allstate to Jordan did not provide coverage for the loss she had sustained as the result of the alleged “collapse” of a portion of her Santa Monica home.

By its terms, the policy expressly provided “additional coverage” for any loss due to an “entire” collapse caused by “hidden decay.” The policy also contained an exclusion for any loss caused by “wet or dry rot.” We conclude that, in the factual context of this case, such conflicting policy language created an ambiguity that must, for the reasons discussed, be resolved against Allstate. We therefore will reverse the summary judgment granted by the trial court and remand with directions for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August of 2000, Jordan purchased a Deluxe Plus Homeowner’s Policy (No. 037803085) from Allstate that provided coverage for her…

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.