The 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 No Duty to Defend Encroachment Action building fence & trimming Trees (Albert v. Mid-Century Ins. (2015) 236 CA4th 1281
While it is possible to obtain an equitable easement to allow a trespasser to continue use of the property in exchange for damages, the hardship on the trespasser must be “greatly disproportionate” to the hardship of the landowner losing a portion of her land. In this neighbor dispute over lawn chairs, the Court provided a definition or test to follow adverse to the trespasser. Basically, the Court of Appeal held that the $275 cost to the trespasser to remove the patio furniture was not sufficient compared to the total loss of use of the area to the legal property owner.