California Court of Appeal

In a dispute over insurance coverage under a commercial general liability policy, trial court's judgment awarding $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages in favor of the insured is reversed and remanded as the trial court erred in finding that the underlying action for the replacement of cash stolen by the insured's employee from one of its clients was an action for damages for the "loss of use" of property within the meaning of the policy, because 'loss of use' of property is different from 'loss' of the property. Thus, as neither the allegations of the underlying complaint nor any extrinsic facts raised any coverage potential, the defendant had not duty of defense or indemnification.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/10/2010
• Published 12/10/2010

Judges

• MCCONNELL

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Frank Falzetta, Mark A. Ginella