Janney

Janney v. CSAA Insurance Exchange

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 15, 2021C089534California10,214 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hoch, J.

BACKGROUND

In September 2014, Baltar’s house in Weed was destroyed by the Boles Fire. The homeowners policy she purchased from CSAA insured her against such an occurrence. Relevant Policy Provisions The policy’s declarations page set out the following coverages in section I: $219,800 for the dwelling (Coverage A), $22,600 for other structures (Coverage B), $164,900 for personal property (Coverage C), and $87,920 for loss of use (Coverage D). The policy also included an endorsement providing limited home replacement cost coverage. This endorsement increased the coverage limits for the dwelling and other structures to “150% of the respective amounts” noted above if certain conditions were met.2 The endorsement further provides: “Coverage is limited to the amount reasonably necessary to repair or replace the dwelling and other ‘building structures,’ but does not

Baltar passed away in April 2019, after the trial court’s summary judgment ruling but before judgment was entered. Baltar’s daughter, Marissa Janney, was substituted into the action as Baltar’s successor in interest and filed a timely notice of appeal. For ease of reference, we refer to the contentions raised in…

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.