Ong

Dissenting. — I disagree with the majority opinion’s reasoning and result. I therefore respectfully dissent.

It appears to be undisputed that the insurer’s investigators concluded that a transient intentionally started the fire on the floor of the kitchen in order to keep warm but did not intend the fire to grow as large and destructive as it did. The question is whether such a fire constitutes vandalism.

The majority reasons that because the common understanding of malice requires actual ill will or intent to injure, the undisputed facts do not show that the fire was vandalism. I am not persuaded.

*912 The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “vandalism,” which the majority quotes from the superior court’s ruling, says that vandalism is “ ‘ “willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property.” ’ ” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 908.) Vandalism thus need not be malicious, as long as it is willful. In this context, “willful” means “done deliberately” and is synonymous with “intentional.” (Merriam-Webster Diet. Online [as of Apr. 3, 2015].)

The majority disposes of the issue of willfulness in a footnote,…

SUMMARY

Plaintiff and appellant Hung Van Ong (Plaintiff) appeals from a stipulated judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Fire Insurance Exchange (Defendant) after the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract. 1 2 Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in concluding that a vacancy exclusion in his policy for a loss from “vandalism or malicious mischief’ applied to fire damage caused by a warming fire started by a transient that spread to other parts of the property. We agree and reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff bought the insured property at issue from his brother, Eugene Ong (Eugene), in 2007. The last tenants moved out in February 2010. Gas and electric utilities were turned off. On December 20, 2011, Eugene submitted a claim to Defendant on Plaintiff’s behalf for a fire at the property earlier on December 20, 2011. Defendant retained an experienced fire investigator, Guy Childress. On December 23, 2011, Childress went to the property to investigate and made a written report concluding, “it appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an…

Filed 4/3/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

HUNG VAN ONG, B252773

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC480676) v.

FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mel Red Recana, Judge. Reversed. Law Offices of Dale Washington and Dale E. Washington for Plaintiff and Appellant. Archer Norris, Limor Lehavi and Paul J. Whitfield, for Defendant and Respondent. ________________________

SUMMARY

Plaintiff and appellant Hung Van Ong (Plaintiff) appeals from a stipulated judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Fire Insurance Exchange (Defendant) after the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract.1 Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in concluding that a vacancy exclusion in his policy for a loss from “vandalism or malicious mischief” applied to fire damage caused by a warming fire started by a transient that spread to other parts of the property. We agree and…