Fait

BACKGROUND

The policy terms and historic facts are not disputed. Briefly, “we determine with respect to each cause of action whether the defendant seeking summary judgment has conclusively negated a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case, or has demonstrated that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of a trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) As stated in our prior opinion, “The owner of a parcel of real property with a building on it demolishes the building to make way for new development. Unfortunately, the owner is unable to complete the development and ends up defaulting on a purchase money promissory note secured by a deed of trust on the property. The holder of the note and deed of trust [Fait] exercises the power of sale under the deed of trust and buys the property back at a foreclosure sale for less than the amount due under the note.” (Fait, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 289.) Because the owner (collectively, New Faze) failed to maintain insurance as required, after “numerous requests,” Fait bought insurance for the property. After the destruction of the building, when Fait acquired the property…