Overview

0 Comments
Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-The clear language of a homeowners policy, interpreted in accordance with Civ. Code, §§ 1636, 1638, 1639, 1644, did not cover repairing structural damage caused by corrosion of supporting poles because no collapse had occurred and because an exclusion for loss caused by corrosion, wear and tear, deterioration, or rust applied; [2]-A mitigation provision was inapplicable because there was no covered loss; [3]-The insurer had no implied obligation under either the common law or Civ. Code, §§ 1655, 1656, to reimburse expenses to prevent an imminent covered loss; [4]-The insurer’s delay in responding to the claim did not give rise to estoppel; [5]-Because the insurer owed nothing under the policy, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not breached; [6]-A new trial was properly denied because a ruling that there was no possibility of coverage was not erroneous.

Nakase Law Firm provides battery legal definition

Outcome