A homeowner’s liability insurer does not have duty to defend a lawsuit after the insured intentionally pruned trees on another’s property without permission. The intentional act of hiring a contractor to prune is not an “accident” within the meaning of the policy’s coverage provision, even if the insured mistakenly believed the trees were on the

In Pulte Home Corporation v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (2017) 14 CA5th 1086 a homeowner sued for latent construction defects.  The General Contractor sought a defense under its sub’s general liability policy as an additional insured.  The insurer denied coverage because the subcontractor’s work was completed work as opposed to “ongoing work”.  The GC sued

Property-DisputeThe court in Albert v Mid-Century Ins. Co. (2015) 236 CA4th 1281 held that an insurer did not have a duty to defend the homeowner in a suit for encroachment arising out of the building of a fence and trimming of trees, because the acts were taken intentionally even if the damage was an accident or unintended result. 
Continue Reading