California Court of Appeal

Summary judgment in favor of defendant insurance company on plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is affirmed, where the trial court correctly concluded that plaintiffs' claim for water damage caused by a broken pipe in their house was not covered under their insurance policy with defendant because: 1) there was not "a sudden and accidental discharge, eruption, overflow or release of water," as required for coverage; 2) the efficient proximate cause doctrine does not apply to plaintiffs' mold claim; 3) the policy is conspicuous, plain, and clear; and 4) because the policy did not cover plaintiffs' claims, plaintiffs do not have a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/24/2013
• Published 04/24/2013

Judges

• SEGAL

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel