Sackett

Plaintiffs have appealed from a judgment denying them recovery under a comprehensive clause in an insurance policy issued by the defendant on plaintiffs' automobile. The trial court made the following findings of fact: “... that:

From the foregoing facts, the court concluded that the loss and damage to plaintiffs’ automobile was not within the comprehensive insurance coverage.

*901 The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the loss does or does not fall within the comprehensive insurance coverage afforded by the policy.

Although the policy does not define the term "accidental means,’’ respondent concedes (and correctly, we believe,) "that coverage would be afforded under the comprehensive coverage” clause contained in Coverage (E), Part IY. In effect, this means that the loss was proximately caused by accident which was unexpected, unforeseen, and involuntary insofar as the assured was concerned. However, respondent contends "that the damage was mechanical breakdown and failure,” and as such was excluded under Part IY, (1), as above set forth.

We do not agree. In Espree v. Western Pioneer Ins. Co., 159 Cal.App.2d Supp. 875 [ 324 P.2d 749 ], the plaintiff sought to…