Reichert

Reichert v. State Farm General Insurance

Good Law
152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 6·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1334·212 Cal. App. 4th 1543
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 28, 2012No. G046582California5,345 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

Eric and Lizbeth Reichert attempted a remodel of their newly purchased Huntington Beach house. Before construction was finished, city building inspectors discovered the project did not conform to Huntington Beach flood plain regulations, and ordered the house demolished. The Reicherts then sued their architect and their contractor, and also made a claim on their homeowners insurance policy. Their insurance company denied the claim, asserting the demolition was not an accidental loss, and in any event the loss was excluded by a provision in their policy saying there is no coverage for loss caused by the enforcement of any law or ordinance. The Reicherts sued their insurer, and the case now comes to us *1545 after the insurer’s successful motion for summary judgment. We affirm. This seems, unfortunately for the Reicherts, a rather clear example of the “law or ordinance exclusion.”

I. FACTS

The trial judge wrote an extraordinarily cogent and detailed statement of facts in his minute order granting the insurer’s summary judgment motion. He looked not only at the bare statement of facts which each side agreed were undisputed, but also at the underlying evidence supporting…

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.