19-10757 640 Center Demurrer 2/26/2020
Defendant Amguard Insurance Company (Amguard) demurs to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) of Plaintiff 640 Center LLC. Having read and considered the written motion, opposition, and reply, the court issues the following tentative ruling:
According to the FAC, Plaintiff suffered a fire loss at the Property on January 1, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that its insurance claim was denied due to the vacancy exclusion in the Policy that excludes coverage if the vacant building suffers loss due to vandalism. [FAC, ¶¶ 9 and 11] Per Plaintiff, Amguard took the coverage position that the vacancy exclusion applies because. Amguard contends that the loss occurred as a result of vandalism. Plaintiff alleges that Amguard incorrectly applied the exclusion and that its loss was due to fire, not vandalism. Plaintiff further alleges that Amguard position that the vandalism exclusion applies is contrary to a controlling California law. Plaintiff contends that it made Ar
Hearing Date
February 21, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
19-10757 640 Center Demurrer 2/26/2020
Defendant Amguard Insurance Company (Amguard) demurs to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) of Plaintiff 640 Center LLC. Having read and considered the written motion, opposition, and reply, the court issues the following tentative ruling:
According to the FAC, Plaintiff suffered a fire loss at the Property on January 1, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that its insurance claim was denied due to the vacancy exclusion in the Policy that excludes coverage if the vacant building suffers loss due to vandalism. [FAC, ¶¶ 9 and 11] Per Plaintiff, Amguard took the coverage position that the vacancy exclusion applies because. Amguard contends that the loss occurred as a result of vandalism. Plaintiff alleges that Amguard incorrectly applied the exclusion and that its loss was due to fire, not vandalism. Plaintiff further alleges that Amguard position that the vandalism exclusion applies is contrary to a controlling California law. Plaintiff contends that it made Ar