Ray

Ray v. Valley Forge Insurance

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 1142·2000 Daily Journal DAR 1083·77 Cal. App. 4th 1039·92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 473·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 718
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 30, 1999No. B129058California3,029 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

A roofing consultant gives bad advice to a homeowners association about reroofing materials..The homeowners association sues the consultant. The consultant tenders defense under his commercial general liability policy, and the insurer refuses to defend. The consultant settles with the homeowners association and sues his insurer for breach of contract and bad faith. The court grants summary judgment to the insurer. Because the standard commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy at issue does not provide coverage for bad professional advice, we affirm.

Richard T. Ray (Ray) appeals from the summary judgment granted to respondent Valley Forge Insurance Company (Valley Forge). Ray asserts that Valley Forge had the duty to defend the complaint of the homeowners association.

*1043 Facts

Ray, a former roofing contractor, owns a professional roof consulting and inspection business, Ray Bros. Inspection and Consulting. The San Antonio Village Owners Association (Association) hired Ray to recommend, specify and approve reroofing materials for Association. The materials Ray specified and approved were not suitable because they caused upstairs units to become unbearably…

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.