“Gonzales v. Fire Insurance Exchange” Panel Discussion • Simi Valley, CA • February 9, 2016

Ian Corzine, Esq. will lead a panel discussion on the new case Gonzales v. Fire Insurance Exchange, et al.  A summary of the case is below:

In Gonzales v. Fire Insurance Exchange, et al., 234 Cal.App.4th 1220 (Cal Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2015), the Court of Appeal examined the scope of an insurer’s duty to defend under a homeowner liability policy and an umbrella liability policy.

The appellant had filed a civil lawsuit against the son of the insureds, alleging causes of action for, inter alia, sexual assault, false imprisonment, slander per se, and invasion of privacy.  In settling the lawsuit, the son of the insureds assigned to the appellant his rights against the respective carriers for the two policies.

The homeowner liability policy covered personal injury resulting from an “occurrence,” which the policy defined as “an accident …. which results …. in bodily injury or property damage.”  The Court of Appeal determined that the intentional acts alleged in the appellant’s complaint did not constitute an “accident,” and thus held that the insurer had no duty to defend under the homeowner liability policy.

The umbrella policy also provided coverage for personal injury resulting from an “occurrence,” but did not require that the personal injury arise from an “accident” in order to establish coverage.   Based on the appellant’s allegations of false imprisonment, slander per se, and invasion of privacy, the Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment of the appellant’s claims against the umbrella carrier, confirming that an insured need only establish the potential for coverage in order to establish the insurer’s duty to defend.