Supreme Court of California

In a coverage dispute involving a property insurance policy that excludes coverage for specified perils while the insured premises are vacant, but with an exception stating that buildings "under construction" are not considered vacant, summary judgment for insurer is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to an appellate court's determination, the word "construction" cannot reasonably be understood to be limited only to the erection of a new structure; 2) the term contemplates all building endeavors, whether classified as new construction, renovations, or additions, which require the substantial and continuing presence of workers at the premises; and 3) a remand was necessary for application of the proper standard.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/13/2006
• Published 11/13/2006

Judges

• MORENO, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Law Office of Timothy L. Kleier, Timothy L. Kleier, Bakersfield;  Law Office of Mark A. Ginella and Mark A. Ginella, Valley Center, for Plaintiffs and Appellants., Law Office of Amy Bach, Amy Bach, Mill Valley;  Goldstein, Gellman, Melbostad, Gibson & Harris, Lee S. Harris, San Francisco;  Fried & Epstein and Lee M. Epstein, for United Policyholders as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Hager & Dowling, Jeffery D. Lim, Jessica M. Johnson and John V. Hager, Santa Barbara, for Defendant and Respondent.