Capelletti

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the trial court erred in sustaining respondent‟s demurrer. Her arguments primarily turn on her assertion that California case authority required respondent to specifically draw her attention to the allegedly “unusual” crime exclusion, in the Application or some other document other than the Policy itself. We disagree.

I. Breach of Contract

Where, as here, the material facts are not in dispute, interpretation of an insurance policy presents solely a question of law. (Haynes v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1198, 1204 (Haynes); accord, Dominguez v. Financial Indemnity Co. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 388, 395 (Dominguez).) “ „ “While insurance contracts have special features, they are still contracts to which the ordinary rules of contractual interpretation apply.” ‟ [Citation.] Accordingly, in interpreting an insurance policy, we seek to discern the mutual intention of the parties and, where possible, to infer this intent from the terms of the policy. [Citations.] When interpreting a policy provision, we give its words their ordinary and popular sense except where they are used by the parties in a technical or other special sense. [Citation.]”…