Barnett

Barnett v. State Farm General Insurance

Good Law
132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 742·200 Cal. App. 4th 536·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1356
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 31, 2011No. G043748California5,837 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Aronson, J.

Greg Barnett appeals from a judgment entered in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm) after the trial court granted State Farm’s summary judgment motion concerning the scope of a theft provision in a homeowners’ policy it issued Barnett. Barnett argues the trial court erred in concluding police seizure of items pursuant to a search warrant did not constitute a theft within the policy terms. The items seized included 12 seven-foot tall marijuana plants, freezer bags containing a total of approximately five ounces of marijuana, and a tray with loose marijuana and rolling paper, which Barnett used for medicinal purposes. As we explain, the police department’s acts of seizing these items pursuant to a search warrant and later destroying them did not trigger the theft provision in Barnett’s policy. We therefore affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Barnett obtained a homeowners insurance policy from State Farm for the period between April 11, 2007, and at least July 7, 2009. The policy included coverage for personal property on a named perils basis. Specifically, the policy covered “direct physical loss to property” caused by…

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.