Split On Calif. Code Upgrade Coverage Remains Unresolved
An appellate court recently interpreted the law and ordinance exclusion to preclude coverage when the enforcement of a law or ordinance is the actual cause of the loss itself rather than a covered peril.
March 18, 2013
Law360, New York (March 18, 2013, 1:17 PM EDT) -- California’s Fourth Appellate District Court recently interpreted the law and ordinance exclusion to preclude coverage when the enforcement of a law or ordinance is the actual cause of the loss itself rather than a covered peril. Reichert v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 212 Cal. App. 4th 1543, 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 6 (2012). Additionally, the court held that even if the law or ordinance is being enforced due to a third party’s negligence, the loss may still be precluded under the exclusion. Id. at 1549-50, 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 10-11.
All Content © 2003-2017, Portfolio Media, Inc.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Damned if You Don’t
In Times of Crisis:
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.